NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

louis · 2018-03-05 11:28:46

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … -Mars.html

Barry DiGregorio, an honorary research fellow at the University of Buckingham who specialises in studies of microscopic life found in the soil of our planet thinks NASA is covering up evidence of soft body life on Mars.

louis · 2018-03-05 11:32:50

While we are on the subject...I think this is probably one of the best proofs of life on Mars:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTHfZGr2v_k

Void · 2018-03-05 12:37:18

Obviously I cannot render a useful opinion on what is given.

However, the materials I have read lately indicate that Mars was fully formed when the Earth was just a proto planet.

So, perhaps we are Martians.

If so, then before Mars became more sterile, than its original state, it may have donated life to the Earth, perhaps many times. during the great bombardment.

The Lazarus microbe and Tardigrades perhaps.

It is apparent that Mars at some point had significant Oxygen in it's atmosphere. This is presumed to be because of U.V. splintering water vapor and Hydrogen drifting into space, leaving the Oxygen away, but who knows. Maybe Cyanobacteria originated on Mars.

These organisms exhibit incredible tolerance to hostile conditions.

If this were so, then I would expect that Earth would have donated life back to Mars periodically, but that Mars since its original living period has been hostile to surface life most of the time, but perhaps occasionally receptive to extreme life.

I think it could be possible that the Mars we see today is in between two conditions. A more hostile environment where it would be hard for life to hang on anywhere, and a slightly improved condition where extreme life is possible in some locations.

But it is all guessing. Really I would not know. We should hope to find out.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-03-05 12:47:08)

louis · 2018-03-05 14:52:36

Some bacteria on Earth can metabolise iron oxide. No reason I can see why organisms, even large ones, couldn't do the same on Mars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-oxidizing_bacteria

Void wrote:

Obviously I cannot render a useful opinion on what is given.
However, the materials I have read lately indicate that Mars was fully formed when the Earth was just a proto planet.
So, perhaps we are Martians.
If so, then before Mars became more sterile, than its original state, it may have donated life to the Earth, perhaps many times. during the great bombardment.
The Lazarus microbe and Tardigrades perhaps.
It is apparent that Mars at some point had significant Oxygen in it's atmosphere. This is presumed to be because of U.V. splintering water vapor and Hydrogen drifting into space, leaving the Oxygen away, but who knows. Maybe Cyanobacteria originated on Mars.
These organisms exhibit incredible tolerance to hostile conditions.
If this were so, then I would expect that Earth would have donated life back to Mars periodically, but that Mars since its original living period has been hostile to surface life most of the time, but perhaps occasionally receptive to extreme life.
I think it could be possible that the Mars we see today is in between two conditions. A more hostile environment where it would be hard for life to hang on anywhere, and a slightly improved condition where extreme life is possible in some locations.
But it is all guessing. Really I would not know. We should hope to find out.

Done.

SpaceNut · 2018-03-05 17:58:35

Just look at all the different types of single celled organisms that earth has and try to explain why we has so many types at that early start. Then try to explain how we have some many multi celled let alone the next tiers up.

Space has been seeding earth for billions of years.....

louis · 2018-03-05 18:51:38

Yes. I've been coming round to that idea in recent years. Seems more plausible now.

SpaceNut wrote:

Just look at all the different types of single celled organisms that earth has and try to explain why we has so many types at that early start. Then try to explain how we have some many multi celled let alone the next tiers up.
Space has been seeding earth for billions of years.....

elderflower · 2018-03-06 05:45:35

Given the universality of the RNA and DNA pathway in genetics, together with the pronounced preference for one hand of chiral molecules and not the other, I think that repeat seeding from space is unlikely. It may have happened once, possibly twice, unless all the seeding came from the same origin. Alternatively, Earth is the origin, which is a simpler explanation (as per Occam).
Whether or not Earth is the origin of life, meteorite bombardment will have sent samples into space if this is at all possible and surviveable, so that life would be spread around the solar system at least. We have several meteorites which have been ascribed to Mars and Mars will, similarly have meteorites from Earth.
If Earth is not the origin then panspermia is a real thing and meteorites from wherever will be on Mars as well as Earth. Same goes for Europa, Ganymede, Enceladus etc.
If the transfer process is not surviveable, panspermia cannot be real and Earth must be the origin of life. If we were to discover life on Mars it would probably share the same origin as Earth life and use the RNA/DNA path, so the panspermia hypothesis will be neither supported nor disproved.

Void · 2018-03-06 13:51:55

Well, that is fairly sensible thinking Elderflower. Still maybe there is only so many ways life can configure to be viable.

And how about if this is true, that "Asteroids began as mudballs"?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 … ar-system/

Now rogue asteroids:
https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/30/tech/inn … index.html

Now interstellar asteroids:
https://www.nasa.gov/planetarydefense/faq/interstellar

If mudball asteroids happen then it is quite possible that a forming planetary system spews bunches of them out into interstellar space.

So, then when and where did it all begin? If one infected mudball from another solar system spatters into one of ours, then what about the mudballs it infects?

Surely we do not know, we need much more data.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-03-06 14:06:47)

louis · 2018-03-06 15:17:52

The rules of natural selection may still apply. There could be many forms of life but when you put them on a planet like Earth perhaps only one or two get selected in the long run. Or alternatively, simpler multiple forms of reproduction perhaps combine to make very robust genetic material that can reproduce and becomes dominant.

elderflower wrote:

Given the universality of the RNA and DNA pathway in genetics, together with the pronounced preference for one hand of chiral molecules and not the other, I think that repeat seeding from space is unlikely. It may have happened once, possibly twice, unless all the seeding came from the same origin. Alternatively, Earth is the origin, which is a simpler explanation (as per Occam).
Whether or not Earth is the origin of life, meteorite bombardment will have sent samples into space if this is at all possible and surviveable, so that life would be spread around the solar system at least. We have several meteorites which have been ascribed to Mars and Mars will, similarly have meteorites from Earth.
If Earth is not the origin then panspermia is a real thing and meteorites from wherever will be on Mars as well as Earth. Same goes for Europa, Ganymede, Enceladus etc.
If the transfer process is not surviveable, panspermia cannot be real and Earth must be the origin of life. If we were to discover life on Mars it would probably share the same origin as Earth life and use the RNA/DNA path, so the panspermia hypothesis will be neither supported nor disproved.

Void · 2018-03-06 18:52:49

I feel this is interesting:
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-photosynt … ought.html
Quote:

Photosynthesis originated a billion years earlier than we thought, study shows
Ancient microbes may have been producing oxygen through photosynthesis a billion years earlier than we thought, which means oxygen was available for living organisms very close to the origin of life on earth. In a new article in Heliyon, a researcher from Imperial College London studied the molecular machines responsible for photosynthesis and found the process may have evolved as long as 3.6 billion years ago.
The author of the study, Dr. Tanai Cardona, says the research can help to solve the controversy around when organisms started producing oxygen - something that was vital to the evolution of life on earth. It also suggests that the microorganisms we previously believed to be the first to produce oxygen - cyanobacteria - evolved later, and that simpler bacteria produced oxygen first.
"My results mean that the process that sustains almost all life on earth today may have been doing so for a lot longer than we think," said Dr. Cardona. "It may have been that the early availability of oxygen was what allowed microbes to diversify and dominate the world for billions of years. What allowed microbes to escape the cradle where life arose and conquer every corner of this world, more than 3 billion years ago."
Photosynthesis is the process that sustains complex life on earth - all of the oxygen on our planet comes from photosynthesis. There are two types of photosynthesis: oxygenic and anoxygenic. Oxygenic photosynthesis uses light energy to split water molecules, releasing oxygen, electrons and protons. Anoxygenic photosynthesis use compounds like hydrogen sulfide or minerals like iron or arsenic instead of water, and it does not produce oxygen.
Previously, scientists believed that anoxygenic evolved long before oxygenic photosynthesis, and that the earth's atmosphere contained no oxygen until about 2.4 to 3 billion years ago. However, the new study suggests that the origin of oxygenic photosynthesis may have been as much as a billion years earlier, which means complex life would have been able to evolve earlier too.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-photosynt … t.html#jCp

So it sounds like Cyanobacteria were not the first to make Oxygen.

I am not claiming it to be true, but the timing on this would almost allow for a organism that produce Oxygen on Mars to jump to the Earth. Mars might have still been marginally habitable in places 3.5 Billion years ago.

It is a stretch, but I do remember that Mars is thought to have had an Oxygen bearing atmosphere at some time in the past.

As I have said, this was presumed to be the result of photolysis, and the loss of Hydrogen to space, but who knows.

Maybe missions will uncover evidence of extinct life.

OK, Oxygen in atmosphere of Ancient Mars:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/20 … tmosphere/
https://gizmodo.com/ancient-mars-was-ev … 1782680758
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 … atmosphere
Quote:

Mars had an oxygen-rich atmosphere four billion years ago
The oxygen was either produced by life forms or by a chemical reaction in the atmosphere of Mars

What else I recall is that Mars was completely formed early in the solar system, and Earth was just a protoplanet at that time, perhaps 20% of it's current size.

I suppose that was very early though. But it may seem that Mars could have been habitable much earlier than the Earth.

Of course if a Mars sized planet did hit the Earth and create the Moon, that would certainly set back any life that could have been on Earth, while Mars may not have had that sort of trouble, at least not until later.

Last edited by Void (2018-03-06 19:10:45)

SpaceNut · 2018-03-06 20:08:03

Common ancestor

not really buying it as there are other branches

and yet we have many virus

still not there as whats the driver that make multi cell?

then again why would we even grow larger?

If we were all the same from the DNA and RNA then we would still be single celled organisms....

IanM · 2018-03-06 21:06:29

As an evolutionary biology major, I'm most convinced by the "ring of life" theory in which all Eukaryotes, rather than constituting a third domain separate from Bacteria and Archaea, are descended from a single archaeal host cell subsuming a bacterium to be its mitochondrion in a process known as endosymbiosis. This was a mutually beneficial process in that the host cell would give the proto-mitochondrion protection from predators and the proto-mitochondrion in turn would make energy for the host cell. Photosynthetic eukaryotes (i.e., plants, algae, etc.) took this process further, subsuming a cyanobacterium to be a chloroplast, and some algae subsuming even other entire eukaryotes for different levels of endosymbiosis. There are admittedly still some kinks to be worked out; we still don't know how or when exactly the proto-eukaryote developed a cell nucleus and other organelles, and an organelleless eukaryotic cell doesn't exactly match an archaeon, but given the various lines of evidence I believe it is the best model at the moment. It's not entirely certain when this endosymbiosis happened, but consensus places it at around 2 Ga, so I doubt that a similar event would have happened on Mars (at least one related to the Terran event).

This endosymbiosis would pave the way for organisms to outright consume food particles as opposed to relying on dissolved nutrients like prokaryotes, giving a predator-prey relationship and provoking an arms race. It would also allow for colonies of different types of cells to develop, like a reef, and such types of cells become increasingly specialized to the point where they stop being individual organisms and become part of a single multi-cellular organism (this can happen in prokaryotes as well, albeit very rarely). These factors would eventually (as in one and a half billion years later) produce complex macroscopic (and eventually quite massive) life at the beginning of the Cambrian period, and the rest is (geologic) history.

Viruses are still a bit of a mystery for biology, but if I'm not mistaken the consensus is that they were formerly parts of full cells that broke off on evolved on their own, albeit parasitically, many many times independently throughout the eons. If this is true then it is yet another deviation from a clean branching tree model of LUCA, as is the prevalence of horizontal gene transfer, but I don't think any of that outright refutes the concept of a last universal common ancestor, just makes it a bit more complicated.

SpaceNut · 2018-03-06 21:27:56

IanM you start to talk about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen which is a joint venture as a composite organism of different limbs of the tree....Having different color and more between the varieties....

IanM · 2018-03-06 21:51:04

Yeah, that's a plausible start. Not to get too off-track, but there are these wonderfully-preserved embryos from right before the Cambrian, around 600 million years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doushantuo_Formation.

With respect to Mars, if Martian life is/was indeed related to Earth life, it would have had to exist around 3.8-3.5 billion years ago (around the time of LUCA on Earth), which Void says is plausible.

Void · 2018-03-06 22:54:24

I would go so far as to say that it is not too far off from plausible.

Hinting at a chance of it being true perhaps.

But by these conversations we might define what our proper questions are to ask about Mars, and what data we most want to seek on Mars.

Last edited by Void (2018-03-06 22:55:29)

Spaniard · 2018-03-07 01:47:24

One interesting theory of pamspermia is about multiplanetary/multistellar evolution. From our limited perspective we assume that evolutions occurs in our planet but if we have a open and fluid channel of life transfer between planets and even stellar systems, then some difficult evolutions like from prokariote to eukariote could be so difficult to appear than it's more easy to receive that evolution trait than generate in the same planet.

So... perhaps planets and stellar systems are evolve as a collective. Eukariote or similar born one in a thousand planets, the rest import them though panspermia. The same could be for other difficult "jumps" like sex and some adaptations.

It that theory was correct, then a lot of planets could share a lot of DNA, just because our environments are not as closed as we thing. Even some kind of DNA transfers like alleged "DNA junk" that could be deactivated DNA by random mutations that could reactivate though inverse mutations and virus that could transfer DNA from some species to another, that could even means gene transfer though the cosmos using other ultraresistant species like water bears, bacterias and later spread in the destination planet though virus into species not capable of survive (not the entitie, of course but not even some piece of body that could make DNA to travel).

That could explain while species adapt so "fast". We were not linked to one only planet, but related with a whole galaxy that would be transfer DNA and have even more time evolving because it doesn't born with our solar system only.

That could mean that the time of emerging technological species is "recent", because perhaps sex evolution born mostly at the same biological age (from a geological perspective) in the galaxy at the same time. Perhaps even the cambrian explosion is galaxy linked, so it's possible that firsts civilizations born only some hundred millions ago.

At the same time, that hipothesis should mean that even in our solar system should be other life forms and linked to the same DNA than us.

GW Johnson · 2018-03-07 12:53:21

Something to think about:

If Mars was once lush and life-bearing, the survivors today would likely be the underground microbial forms, if the nature of it is anything like the life of which we know. The current surface is rather harsh, probably inimical to life as we know it.

There are two ways we will run into this underground life: drilling, and terraforming. Do either (and sooner or later you must, if you are building bases or colonies), and you will be exposed.

If drilling, the exposure is limited. If terraforming, underground Martian life will sooner or later recolonize the surface. That exposure cannot be limited.

GW

IanM · 2018-03-07 14:26:06

Whether "exposure" matters depends on the nature of the life itself. If it's completely foreign by the standards of Earth life it would probably be treated by the immune system as an abiotic infection and be no more or less virulent. On the other hand, if it's like bacteria some precautions should be taken but it shouldn't be too bad: fewer than 100 bacterial species cause disease in humans, compared to the 1000s in the human digestive system alone. The greatest danger would probably be if they're akin to viruses, but that is highly variable. I am of the opinion that if indigenous life is found it should be incorporated into any terraformation scheme, but that's just me.

IanM · 2018-03-07 15:11:21

I think the definitive calling card for life on Mars, extant or otherwise, would be a depletion of Carbon 13 in sediment deposits. Life is ultimately just a series of self-sustaining redox reactions (which may or may not use Oxygen) that prefer to use Carbon 12 rather than Carbon 13. Significant depletion of Carbon 13 usually means either methane (which naturally has less Carbon 13 for reasons I don't understand) or life. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664679/ gives hope with its rocks being found to be quite 13C depleted, but those are from meteorites and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Void · 2018-03-07 16:17:47

I have enjoyed reading your information. If asteroids were mudballs, then perhaps interstellar panspermia can occur.

But I have for some time also considered the role of rogue planets potentially fostering interstellar panspermia.

It is my understanding that if you go down 10 miles for a planet like Earth, even in the terrible cold of space without a sun, enough warming for life may occur. So then what you also need is water, most likely. Radioactive decay can create Hydrogen for life. Also, just good old chemicals could sustain a meager biosphere under those conditions for a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_planet
Quote:

The Milky Way alone may have billions of rogue planets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_form … _nurseries

So, I have a question: "What would happen if a rogue planet with life 10 miles down impacted a star nursery?
My speculation is that it would slow down and accumulate more matter from the star nursery. Perhaps it would even be captured to an orbit within it, and would even heat up as it would be accumulating gasses and dust. If heated up, perhaps it would even allow life to move upward to the surface due to the heat of compressed gasses and impacts as well.

Where several theories of star and planetary formation have been proposed, typically each stellar system is seeming to be typically unique. Is the implantation of rogue objects the answer for why? Could a star condense around a rogue object? Could a planet do so?

We believe that it is very hard to capture a planet to a existing star, but what if you think of it being captured into a interstellar cloud, a nursery for stars, before the stars emerge? I think capture might be possible. Factors such as friction, accumulation of new mass, magnetism, and so on may cause a rogue object to be captured into an interstellar cloud to begin to orbit the center of mass.

If this rogue object were to bear life, then possibilities of panspermia by bombardment emerge. In other words, a newborn star system may begin with life.

But of course I cannot present substantial evidence of that. It is just something that I have been running around in my head for some time.

......

Another somewhat off topic issue is how do stars and planets form?

In my opinion is that sometimes they might form from the seeds of a rogue object injected into a stellar nursery. This could account for the apparent randomness of the configurations of stellar systems that have been detected.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-03-07 16:34:22)

SpaceNut · 2018-03-07 20:48:55

Which leads to comets for that traveling seed bearer or carrier....of which the earth was pummeled with early in its developement.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-04-12 09:35:41

In order to properly investigate the relationship between Earth life and Mars life that may (or may not) be discovered, one of the first instruments taken by the early scientist-explorers should be a polarimeter. Then any amino acids or genetic material discovered can be examined for chirality. The carbohydrate portion of DNA/RNA for Earth life is Dextrorotatory, or "D" configuration; the amino acids of Earth life are all Levorotatory, or "L" configuration. If life forms found are congruent with these, then there is SOME evidence for panspermia, of life from a common origin. Based on randomness, that D & L combination has just a 25% probability of "just happening."

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-04-12 09:36:44)

IanM · 2018-04-12 11:18:04

I think that's a good idea, as a first step to rule out any panspermia if the configurations are different. Perhaps using paper chromatography to see which amino acids are used could also be a sign. There are 20 amino acids in use by Earth life even though much more were found in the Miller-Urey experiment and similar experiments (and thus can feasibly have formed on early Earth/Mars). Assuming there are at least 50 amino acids possible and Martian life uses exactly 20 of them, there are more than 47 trillion ways to get a set of 20 amino acids from one of 50, so if the amino acid set is identical that's essentially a dead ringer for panspermia since that would only have a 1/47 trillionth chance of happening by accident. The main arguable drawback is that any difference of the sets would not necessarily rule out panspermia since amino acids could be lost or gained via evolution, but all of Earth life has been using the same 20 amino acids since the Last Universal Common Ancestor 3.8 billion years ago so that scenario isn't particularly likely.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-04-12 11:28:23

Actually, paper chromatography would be very awkward to do on Mars. A high resolution HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatograph) could make the necessary separations and identify the A.A.'s by retention times. But that requires an enzymatic hydrolysis or acid hydrolysis first. Some system for identification of a light absorbing chromophore is also needed (bacteriorhodopsin or chlorophyll). Recall that bacteria are actually plant life, as they have cell walls in addition to cell membranes.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-04-12 11:29:06)

IanM · 2018-04-12 17:00:53

True, which is why A.A. analysis would likely be a second-level test after chirality is determined but before anything crazy like PCR testing for genetics to determine relationships, if life is indeed found.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-03-05 11:28:46

NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#2 2018-03-05 11:32:50

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#3 2018-03-05 12:37:18

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#4 2018-03-05 14:52:36

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#5 2018-03-05 17:58:35

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#6 2018-03-05 18:51:38

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#7 2018-03-06 05:45:35

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#8 2018-03-06 13:51:55

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#9 2018-03-06 15:17:52

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#10 2018-03-06 18:52:49

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#11 2018-03-06 20:08:03

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#12 2018-03-06 21:06:29

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#13 2018-03-06 21:27:56

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#14 2018-03-06 21:51:04

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#15 2018-03-06 22:54:24

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#16 2018-03-07 01:47:24

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#17 2018-03-07 12:53:21

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#18 2018-03-07 14:26:06

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#19 2018-03-07 15:11:21

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#20 2018-03-07 16:17:47

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#21 2018-03-07 20:48:55

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#22 2018-04-12 09:35:41

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#23 2018-04-12 11:18:04

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#24 2018-04-12 11:28:23

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

#25 2018-04-12 17:00:53

Re: NASA under fire for covering up life on Mars (university expert says)

Board footer