Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

BWhite · 2005-02-16 15:55:44

At least http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6981361/]about this!

I found the link on front page at MSNBC

WASHINGTON - A pair of NASA scientists told a group of space officials at a private meeting here that they have found strong evidence that life may exist today on Mars, hidden away in caves and sustained by pockets of water.

and this:

What Stoker and Lemke have found, according to several attendees of the private meeting, meeting, which took place Sunday, is not direct proof of life on Mars, but methane signatures and other signs of possible biological activity remarkably similar to those recently discovered in caves here on Earth.

Formal paper in process pending peer review.

Edited By BWhite on 1108591112

Palomar · 2005-02-16 18:27:16

*I'd just signed off for a few hours when Bill posted the above article. I've just read the Yahoo! version of this story.

The two scientists, according to sources at the Sunday meeting, based their case in part on Mars' *fluctuating* methane signatures that could be a sign of an active underground biosphere

They also mention jarosite in connection with Oppy, at Merdiani Planum. Rio Tinto study here on Earth as a "good analog for searching for life on Mars."

This is exciting. Two of the most intense pieces of news (one private, and this) in one day. My head is reeling a bit.

--Cindy

::EDIT::

They are desperate to find out what could be producing the methane, one attendee told Space News. Their answer is drill, drill, drill.
NASA has no firm plans for sending a drill-equipped lander to

Well send one, you damned fools! :laugh:

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-16 18:53:59

Gosh!
My name up in lights as part of a thread title.
Fame at last!!

Thanks, Bill, for drawing our attention to that article. I hadn't spotted it. (And thank you for bringing me as close to fame as I've ever been, or as I'm ever likely to get, incidentally! :laugh: )

Yes, I've been convinced for a long time now that there's life on Mars because I can't honestly see a logically sound alternative to that viewpoint. This article just adds to my conviction.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-16 18:58:46

By the way, Dickbill supposedly posted at the thread next-door to this one, '(Non-)Official Life on Mars Poll', on Feb.16 2005.
I can't seem to access that post, for some reason. ???
Anyone else having the same trouble?

Dook · 2005-02-16 19:17:23

This probably means that we will have a manned mission to mars sooner rather than later, so within 25 years rather than 30!

:Sarcasm:

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-17 07:26:15

By the way, Dickbill supposedly posted at the thread next-door to this one, '(Non-)Official Life on Mars Poll', on Feb.16 2005.
I can't seem to access that post, for some reason.

Yes, I noticed that. Half the reason for this post is to make sure it bumps it, actually. Otherwise it may have to be locked.

But on topic, if this gains widespread acceptance some of our obscure battles here over the... "Rights of Microbes" for lack of a better term could suddenly become quite relevant.

Bask in the knowledge that we're all ahead of our time.

Palomar · 2005-02-17 07:30:49

*Geez, I figured more people would be a bit more excited about yesterday's news. Sure, it's not proof-positive of life on Mars but pretty danged close. :-\ The overall response seems pretty much :sleep:

I don't get it.

--Cindy

P.S.:

As for dickbill's post in the other thread (Mad Grad's poll), I have no trouble accessing it at all. Here is what he said:

I just read the poll here. How could people be so sure that Mars is a germy planet ?
That it was, maybe...that it is now..hmmm. Hopefully Mars is more fun because you can always explore to find a niche where life could hatch or just microfossils.
I think the quest for life on Mars will be over when most of the hot volcanic spots will have been drilled down to 10 miles to the mantle, not anytime soon.
Because, remember the "sterilizing impact theory", that life appeared in several spots, at several time during early earth history, only to be swept out by meteoritic impacts during that period when earth was under heavy bombardments (We cannot escape bombardments these days).
So finding something similar to the nanofossils present in meteorit ALH81004 (a goal for future rovers) in the tinyest spot on Mars will be indication of at least one aborted attempt for life.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-17 07:39:58

As for dickbill's post in the other thread (Mad Grad's poll), I have no trouble accessing it at all. Here is what he said:

That's the Jan. 29 post, supposedly there is a Feb. 16 post as well, lost to the void. Or a glitch, only dickbill knows for sure.

*Geez, I figured more people would be a bit more excited about yesterday's news. Sure, it's not proof-positive of life on Mars but pretty danged close. :-\ The overall response seems pretty much
I don't get it.

I just don't think many people here are surprised. <shrug> Prove that the methane is from giant Martian sandworms and I'll get fired up, but microbes are well within the range of accepted probabilities.

And you can barbecue giant sandworms.

Palomar · 2005-02-17 07:53:12

That's the Jan. 29 post, supposedly there is a Feb. 16 post as well, lost to the void. Or a glitch, only dickbill knows for sure.

*Whoops. Sorry. What may have happened is someone merely voted in the poll, which of course brought it up again with the blue View New Posts marker.

Maybe he did post there and it got lost. I checked his profile, which says he did post on the 16th -- but in an entirely different thread (of course the Profile only indicates the last thread posted in and he could have posted in Mad Grad's poll prior to his final post of the day). Yep, guess we'll have to wait for dickbill to confirm or deny.

I just don't think many people here are surprised. <shrug>

*Well, can't say I was surprised...but it's somewhat exciting news at least. IMO.

that the methane is from giant Martian sandworms and I'll get fired up, but microbes are well within the range of accepted probabilities.
And you can barbecue giant sandworms

*That just killed my craving for chocolate. :-\ Thanks, will help my diet.

Back on topic...

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-02-17 08:22:08

And you can barbecue giant sandworms.

Actually, a Mars-worm BBQ steak would most certainly pass right through, as it were.

As for eating non-DNA based lifeforms? Why bother? What are the odds any nutritious amino acids or proteins might be found?

= = =

More seriously, this has potential to be very significant.

As I have said before, a Gaia-state seems to me to be the natural result of ANY life that evolves. Using the power of exponential reproduction, life WILL engulf its environment and diversify.

IF there are only a few microbes left over, THEN I would predict an astonishing rich selection of fossils from the Gaia-state that once existed on Mars. And if life was sufficiently abundant, buried hydrocarbons are actually quite likely.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-17 08:43:49

Actually, a Mars-worm BBQ steak would most certainly pass right through, as it were.
As for eating non-DNA based lifeforms? Why bother? What are the odds any nutritious amino acids or proteins might be found?

Not necessarily. If cross-contamination is as frequent as some theorize then Earth and Mars life would most likely be essentially the same stuff. DNA, same chiralty, same basic compounds. Edible.

As I have said before, a Gaia-state seems to me to be the natural result of ANY life that evolves. Using the power of exponential reproduction, life WILL engulf its environment and diversify.

Maybe. Or life started and never quite got beyond the microbe stage. Or perhaps there are Martian microbes but they're Terran transplants that adpated.

I'd certainly like to see fossils of Martian dinosaurs turn up and a lake of Martian oil could have some applications, but I'm far from convinced that this Gaia-state model has any connection to reality. At present we have only one data point, any conclusion is purely speculative.

BWhite · 2005-02-17 11:33:37

As I have said before, a Gaia-state seems to me to be the natural result of ANY life that evolves. Using the power of exponential reproduction, life WILL engulf its environment and diversify.
Maybe. Or life started and never quite got beyond the microbe stage. Or perhaps there are Martian microbes but they're Terran transplants that adpated.
I'd certainly like to see fossils of Martian dinosaurs turn up and a lake of Martian oil could have some applications, but I'm far from convinced that this Gaia-state model has any connection to reality. At present we have only one data point, any conclusion is purely speculative.

Michigan State University (IIRC) is running a massive simulation of evolution on some really, really big computers.

After all, DNA ain't nothing but a clunky form of computer code. Thus its all math, not biological observation.

Anyway, considerable investigation has been done into alternate scenarios based on looking at evolution as a branch of information theory and rather universally the "life forms" engulf all available resources and produce astounding diversity.

Again, IIRC, the folks running these sims have freely altered the initial conditions. Thus we have only one observational data set, there are countless hypothetical data sets all of which support the "life explosion" idea - - if resources are present.

= = =

http://williamcalvin.com/1990s/1997JMem … ]Evolution as algorithm - - its all just computer code.

1. There must be a pattern involved.
2. The pattern must be copied somehow (indeed, that which is copied may serve to define the pattern). [Together, 1 and 2 are the minimum replicable unit -- so, in a sense, we could reduce six essentials to five. But I'm splitting rather than lumping here because so many "sparse Darwinian" processes exhibit a pattern without replication.]
3. Variant patterns must sometimes be produced by chance -- though it need not be purely random, as another process could well bias the directionality of the small sidesteps that result. Superpositions and recombinations will also suffice.
4. The pattern and its variant must compete with one another for occupation of a limited work space. For example, bluegrass and crab grass compete for back yards. Limited means the workspace forces choices, unlike a wide-open niche with enough resources for all to survive. Observe that we're now talking about populations of a pattern, not one at a time.
5. The competition is biased by a multifaceted environment: for example, how often the grass is watered, cut, fertilized, and frozen, giving one pattern more of the lawn than another. That's Darwin's natural selection.
6. New variants always preferentially occur around the more successful of the current patterns. In biology, there is a skewed survival to reproductive maturity (environmental selection is mostly juvenile mortality) or a skewed distribution of those adults who successfully mate (sexual selection). This is what Darwin later called an inheritance principle. Variations are not just random jumps from some standard starting position; rather, they are usually little sidesteps from a pretty-good solution (most variants are worse than a parent, but a few may be even better, and become the preferred source of further variants).

Life is very much like Vonnegut's "ice-nine" - - once it gets going it will assimiliate its environment.

Edited By BWhite on 1108662027

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-17 11:43:33

To refine and clarify my skepticism of the "Gaia-state" idea, I draw a distinction between unicellular and multicellular life. We almost certainly won't find a planet that's barren and lifeless except for a 500 square kilometer patch of jungle filled with everything from slugs to giant monkeys, but isolated groups of indigenous or transplanted microbes seems entirely possible. For all we know life started on Mars in an underground pool of sludge water and was never able to expand beyond it. It wouldn't progress much to more complex forms, but it could survive as long as the basic nutrients it relies on are present.

The computer simulation you mention, as well as previous similar experiments, does not account for the leap from simple to complex lifeforms and even then a form of life may be using all available resources while still being confined to a limited area on a planet by the absence of those resources elsewhere or the difficulty in reaching them.

But again, I agree with the basic premise as it applies to multicellular life. Different rules for bacteria and elephants.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1108662275

clark · 2005-02-17 11:51:47

After all, DNA ain't nothing but a clunky form of computer code.

LOL!

Life as "clunky" computer code? Considering... well, us, I'm inclined to believe you underestimate the situation.

Or perhaps I am overestimating it, considering... well, us.

BWhite · 2005-02-17 11:54:15

To refine and clarify my skepticism of the "Gaia-state" idea, I draw a distinction between unicellular and multicellular life. We almost certainly won't find a planet that's barren and lifeless except for a 500 square kilometer patch of jungle filled with everything from slugs to giant monkeys, but isolated groups of indigenous or transplanted microbes seems entirely possible. For all we know life started on Mars in an underground pool of sludge water and was never able to expand beyond it. It wouldn't progress much to more complex forms, but it could survive as long as the basic nutrients it relies on are present.
The computer simulation you mention, as well as previous similar experiments, does not account for the leap from simple to complex lifeforms and even then a form of life may be using all available resources while still being confined to a limited area on a planet by the absence of those resources elsewhere or the difficulty in reaching them.
But again, I agree with the basic premise as it applies to multicellular life. Different rules for bacteria and elephants.

Fair enough.

But either way, the only really sensible course of action is to go there and drill, drill, drill. . .

C M Edwards · 2005-02-17 14:49:07

*Geez, I figured more people would be a bit more excited about yesterday's news. Sure, it's not proof-positive of life on Mars but pretty danged close. :-\ The overall response seems pretty much :sleep:
I don't get it.

Katie Couric, anchor for that flagship of television news, The Today Show, has already interviewed an expert on the topic this morning - a charming fellow, who talked about the relationship between cows and methane.

I expect the first rumors of martian bovines to arrive shortly.

Palomar · 2005-02-17 14:55:36

Katie Couric, anchor for that flagship of television news, The Today Show, has already interviewed an expert on the topic this morning - a charming fellow, who talked about the relationship between cows and methane.
I expect the first rumors of martian bovines to arrive shortly.

*Flatulent, belching Marsian moo-moo's? :laugh:

If only.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-17 15:00:16

*Flatulent, belching Marsian moo-moo's?
If only.

And much more grillable than giant sandworms.

BWhite · 2005-02-17 15:07:27

After all, DNA ain't nothing but a clunky form of computer code.
LOL!
Life as "clunky" computer code? Considering... well, us, I'm inclined to believe you underestimate the situation.
Or perhaps I am overestimating it, considering... well, us.

Ah, but "we" are more than DNA.

And emergence means the whole can exceed the sum of the parts without the need for supernatural sleight of hand.

BWhite · 2005-02-17 17:58:33

Water on Mars - - albeit http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m … 217.html]a billion years ago

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-17 18:39:24

I'm inclined to agree with Bill's interesting speculation about a Martian Gaia. If we assume that microbes got a foothold on Mars, say, 4 billion years ago, or perhaps more, then they may well have diversified to create a self-perpetuating system like Earth's in some ways.
On the other hand, CC's counter-argument is logical - especially the part about diversification into macroscopic multicellular life, which isn't well understood even on Earth. If we're in the dark about what spurred the sudden flowering of multicellular life here some 590 million years ago, we're obviously in big trouble trying to extrapolate that to the Martian situation.

But then again, NASA's Dr. Chris McKay has suggested that Mars may have evolved, geologically, at a faster rate than Earth because of its smaller size. Earth, being larger, accumulated more of the lighter reducing gases than Mars did during its formation; gases like carbon-monoxide, ammonia, and even hydrogen. These gases would have been injected into Earth's atmosphere, via volcanism, for a much longer period here than on Mars. Thus, while cyanobacteria on Earth were producing oxygen, that oxygen, for maybe 2 billion years, was reacting with the reducing gases and not contributing to an oxygen-rich atmosphere. It was 'only' about 2-3 billion years ago that reducing gases petered out, leaving the more familiar volcanic gases we see today, CO2 and water vapour. This allowed the oxygen produced by the cyanobacteria gradually to accumulate in our air and may have helped ultimately to allow, if not actually trigger, the evolution of larger multicellular creatures.
Dr. McKay suggests Mars vented all its reducing gases much earlier, possibly allowing cyanobacteria to produce an oxygen-rich atmosphere billions of years before Earth.
If this was so, and Bill's Martian Gaia hypothesis is also true, then one can imagine a vastly accelerated evolution of complex life on early Mars. In fact, the evolution of life generally may be considerably faster on relatively low-gravity planets everywhere. Perhaps Earth is an unusually massive rocky planet and its 'explosion' of complex life occurred much later than average(?) .. who knows?

So it's quite conceivable, given what we know of planetary evolution, that Mars could have had a very diverse ecosystem for hundreds of millions of years before Earth left the 'bacteria only' phase. Since then, of course, the available ecological niches on Mars must have dwindled dramatically because of atmospheric loss and drastic cooling of the environment, which would obviously tend to create the restricted conditions of CC's argument.
And, for the reasons we've mentioned, that doesn't necessarily preclude the discovery of rich fossil-beds from a balmier early period, as Bill suggests might exist.

I think our present knowledge of Martian history is sufficiently scanty to allow for many possibilities and both Bill and CC could be right at the same time about this.
And I, for one, haven't all together given up on seeing a macroscopic fossil in one of those so-called 'microscopic' images from Spirit and Opportunity.
:;):

BWhite · 2005-02-17 22:09:06

I have long doubted the prospects for extant life on Mars. Its just my gut feeling - - that said, I would be happy beyond belief to be proven wrong. :;):

Cobra makes a good point and he may be correct.

But my instincts remain that =IF= living microbes exist today on Mars they are the resilient survivors of a once flourishing planet engulfing biosphere, which perhaps flourished and 99.99% died off before life arrived on Earth. A billion years ago.

(Edit: Terran life transported to Mars by asteroids is plausible, except the alkaline surface would make getting those little beasties down into the water-laden caverns that much more difficult.)

Ponder that for a few moments. A billion years ago.

Then =IF= that is true, a Marsian origin for Terran life becomes a far more reasonable theory, again IMHO.

Edited By BWhite on 1108699897

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-17 22:29:26

I think our present knowledge of Martian history is sufficiently scanty to allow for many possibilities and both Bill and CC could be right at the same time about this.
And I, for one, haven't all together given up on seeing a macroscopic fossil in one of those so-called 'microscopic' images from Spirit and Opportunity.

I agree that both perspectives are equally valid given current data, as is the belief that there's nothing there.

It's possible that if we prove life exists on Mars we'll find that it's "germy", currently just microbes in isolated niches but multicellular life once covered the planet and we can all claim we were right.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-17 23:57:21

Bill:-

But my instincts remain that =IF= living microbes exist today on Mars they are the resilient survivors of a once flourishing planet engulfing biosphere, which perhaps flourished and 99.99% died off before life arrived on Earth. A billion years ago.

Forgive me if I seem obtuse but I'm uncertain how to interpret your meaning here, Bill.
You appear to be saying that the hypothetically flourishing Martian biota we're speculating about could have largely died out maybe a billion years ago, possibly leaving isolated bacterial remnants underground. And it looks like you're placing the 'arrival' of life on Earth at some time close to, but perhaps slightly after, that event.

Am I on the right track or have I got it all wrong?

Palomar · 2005-02-18 10:08:59

*Flatulent, belching Marsian moo-moo's?
If only.
And much more grillable than giant sandworms.

*Indeed. Am making a note to bring A1 Steak Sauce to Mars. -grin- Inch-thick marinated steaks, mmmmmmm.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16186]This just in from NASA Headquarters

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-02-16 15:55:44

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#2 2005-02-16 18:27:16

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#3 2005-02-16 18:53:59

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#4 2005-02-16 18:58:46

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#5 2005-02-16 19:17:23

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#6 2005-02-17 07:26:15

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#7 2005-02-17 07:30:49

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#8 2005-02-17 07:39:58

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#9 2005-02-17 07:53:12

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#10 2005-02-17 08:22:08

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#11 2005-02-17 08:43:49

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#12 2005-02-17 11:33:37

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#13 2005-02-17 11:43:33

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#14 2005-02-17 11:51:47

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#15 2005-02-17 11:54:15

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#16 2005-02-17 14:49:07

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#17 2005-02-17 14:55:36

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#18 2005-02-17 15:00:16

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#19 2005-02-17 15:07:27

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#20 2005-02-17 17:58:33

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#21 2005-02-17 18:39:24

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#22 2005-02-17 22:09:06

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#23 2005-02-17 22:29:26

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#24 2005-02-17 23:57:21

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

#25 2005-02-18 10:08:59

Re: Perhaps Shaun Barrett - is RIGHT! :-)

Board footer