Posted on 10/23/2002 4:07:44 PM PDT by blam
Wednesday, 23 October, 2002, 17:04 GMT 18:04 UK
Martian rock 'does contain life'
Is this a fossilised micro organism from Mars? ©Nasa
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor
The strange shapes seen in a rock from Mars that some researchers say are fossilised bacteria really are tiny micro organisms, say American researchers.
But while they are confident the Mars rock contains fossilised life they cannot quite bring themselves to say it comes from the Red Planet, it might be Earthly contamination.
Despite the uncertainty about their origin establishing that the small structures really were living things, and not just mineral globules, would be an advance in a field that has sharply divided opinions.
Lawrence Taylor of the University of Tennessee told BBC News Online that so-called "nannobacteria" found on Earth resemble those found in the Mars rock." The next task is to find a way to determine if they really came from Mars.
Life on Mars?
Since the dramatic announcement in 1996 by Nasa scientists that there were several lines of evidence that suggested rock ALH84001, picked up from Antarctic ice but originally from Mars, contained evidence of life, scientific opinion has been divided between those who wanted to be persuaded, and those who did not.
Nannobacteria seen in the Mars rock. © Robert Folk.
Since then the rock has been extensively analysed and many papers written, but few have shifted their viewpoints.
One camp has looked at magnetic grains in the microfossils saying that they appear identical to magnetic grains found in some terrestrial bacteria. Another group of researchers looked at indications of how carbon deposits in the rock were formed looking to see if they were deposited at low enough temperatures so they could be by-products of life.
whether these bodies originated on Mars, or are Antarctic contamination remains a valid question
Lawrence Taylor Univ of Tennessee
Rival researchers have argued that the very small size of the purported micro organisms make it unlikely that they were living things because they are too small.
In the past few years however some researchers, principally Robert Folk of the University of Texas, have put forward evidence that terrestrial nannobacteria do exist and add significantly to the Earth's biomass.
The latest study, by Robert Folk and Lawrence Taylor, casts doubt on the lower size limit for life viewpoint. Some of the larger bacteria found in ALH2004 are actually close in size to the smallest terrestrial organisms.
But if the case for the fossilised micro organisms in ALH84001 is strengthened somewhat the big question remains: where did they come from?
"We conclude that the nanobodies that are so abundant in ALH84001 are indeed nannobacteria. However whether these bodies originated on Mars, or are Antarctic contamination remains a valid question," say the researchers.
We search the heavens for patterns in radio waves assuming there will be intelligence behind those patterns. We look in rocks for patterns that remind us of bacteria or something similar to life on earth. But we look at DNA which is certainly a pattern with a massive amount of data and do not assume an intelligence behind it. We claim that evolved life is a product of random chance yet search rocks for similarities.
Scientific schizophrenia lives. A little logic, if applied, would go a long way.
There is nothing but spectoral data and that is just way too vague to base such a conclusion.
Yes, but assume that the galaxy is teeming with bacteria, inside every planet made of rock, anyway. It seems to be a safe assumption. Higher forms of life such as 'ahem' ourselves might be unique to earth. Assume that, and the consequences will work out with little turbulence.
No. - but send more probes. They're delicious.
One 'rock from outer space worshipping' cult is plenty enough.
Though I'm convinced that the origin of life defies a naturalistic explanation, I am expecting that life, or the remains of life, will eventually be discovered on Mars. My reason has nothing to do with spontaneous generation. It has everything to do with Mars' proximity to Earth.Four years ago, on ABC's "Nightline" with Ted Koppel, two astronomers and a science journalist declared that the discovery of life on Mars would provide virtual proof that life does indeed originate and evolve, and quite easily, by natural processes. Here is their line of reasoning: So far, we know of life's existence on only one planet orbiting one star out of ten-billion-trillion stars in the cosmos. If life is found on Mars, we would know it exists on two planets, but not just any two planets, two planets orbiting the same star. Instead of just one life site out of ten-billion-trillion candidates, we would have two life sites out of nine (the nine planets of our solar system). Such a finding would suggest that life is abundant throughout our universe, abundant by spontaneous generation.
By their faulty reasoning and failure to acknowledge relevant data, these influential men are setting their audience up for a deception. The remains, at least, of many micro-organisms are likely to be found on Mars for no other reason than that Mars is only thirty-five million miles away from Earth. In other words, these zealous evolutionists, bent on searching for life on Mars, seem to ignore important facts about the transportability and survivability of Earth life forms.
Perhaps such could be added to an existing planned mission.
Thanks for that image earthling. Not those probes.
I say again - eeeeyyyuuuu.
Okay, let's say I grant you, for the sake of argument, that a meteor strike on Mars could cause some rocks to achieve escape velocity. Then there's two more issues:
Actually, only the very outside of a meteorite is heated -- small parts melt and get blown away (called ablation), but the interior stays quite cool. The same principle worked with the Apollo spacecraft, returning from the Moon.
Such rocks don't come with return addresses. Isn't it really a WAG that it came from Mars originally?
It's a complicated story, but basically, Mars meteorites have chemistry and ages consistent with coming from Mars, but not the asteroids. What really nailed it down was the discovery in these rocks of minute bits of argon gas whose isotopic composition identically matches the atmosphere of Mars, as determined by the Viking 1 spacecraft 25 years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.