Life on Mars Confirmed

[blader]

In the latest study of a 4.5 billion-year-old Martian meteorite, researchers presented new evidence confirming that 25 percent of the magnetic material in the meteorite was produced by ancient bacteria on Mars. The comparison between the proposed bacteria-produced crystals in the meteorite and crystals produced by Earth-bacteria provides strong evidence these crystals were made by bacteria on Mars. These latest results were published in the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
http://www.nasa.gov/

 

[Morat]

  Cool. Just totally cool. Absolutely, totally, amazingly cool.

  Actually, I'm sure there are better words for it. But I'm stuck with "cool" because it's been a long, long day.

 

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I wonder if Venus ever had life on it - way back when the sun was cooler.

 

[Cephalic Carnage]

It just leaves you in awe.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

In a way it is cool...

But in a way I was and still am hoping Mars is currently dead...

It would be much harder to approve mass colinization in Mars has any kind of life on it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I hate to be a wet blanket, but this evidence isn't conclusive. The criteria that they are using to identify biomagnetic material is similar to Dembski's criteria for identifying intelligent design: they have so far found only biological causes for magnetic crystals with this "signature." Yet non-living causes cannot be ruled out completely.

Their work was fairly rigorous in eliminating the possibility of later contamination, but there is still the remote possibility of contamination.

Also, a meteorite 4.5 billion years old would have been kicked off during the formative period of the solar system - when it is far less likely that any planet would be hospitable to life as we know it.

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
I hate to be a wet blanket, but this evidence isn't conclusive. The criteria that they are using to identify biomagnetic material is similar to Dembski's criteria for identifying intelligent design: they have so far found only biological causes for magnetic crystals with this "signature." Yet non-living causes cannot be ruled out completely.

Their work was fairly rigorous in eliminating the possibility of later contamination, but there is still the remote possibility of contamination.

Also, a meteorite 4.5 billion years old would have been kicked off during the formative period of the solar system - when it is far less likely that any planet would be hospitable to life as we know it.

I was starting to wonder if everyone was going to sheepishly accept this as I read the thread.  It is nice that someone mentioned that NASA's reasoning is very similiar to Dembski's.  And for heaven's sake, this rock is from another planet and I don't think it can be said that we know of all geochemical processes that could have occured on Mars a billion years ago.  Heck, even on Earth there is a lot of that stuff that is not yet known.  We don't know how it formed therefore life did it!  That is just plain the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance.  NASA's people have no case until such time as they can point to some positive evidence for life or former life on Mars and not merely point to something we don't understand.

Honestly folks, NASA has utterly no crediblity left on the life in the Solar System issue.  It has a lot more to do with trying to butter us up for more money than with any real science.  Funny thing is I for one would the first to say NASA should have far more money to explore the Solar System.  I just don't think they should bring in bad science and the unlikely prospect of finding life elsewhere in the Solar System to justify it.

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

A better link, by the way:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/20020802a.html

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I remember a few months ago that NASA announced that it had reviewed analysis of images taken from the pathfinder mission and an found chlorophyll in 8 locations. Turned out, however, that 6 of the 8 locations were on the lander.
I have heard the criticisms of NASA before. Apparently they are desperate for money and want to really toot the "life-on-mars, earthlike-planets-around-other-stars" horn to enliven support. Sad, but I would not be shocked if it were true. Does this pandering amount to bad science, or do they just need to seriously review their PR dept.?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Does this pandering amount to bad science, or do they just need to seriously review their PR dept.?

PR departments (NASA's and most others) have a very bad track record. I would be more inclined to suspect that this is the case here too, before suspecting bad science.

 

[Morat]

  It doesn't state this explicitly, but it implies it throughout. I think 4.5 billion is the age of the rock, not the age of the magnetic chains. These things wouldn't have lived there as it formed, after all.

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Good point Morat.. but I have to maintain my position that this evidence for extraterrestrial life is anything but conclusive.

 

[Morat]

  Eh, it's probably better than you think (although probably not as good as Nasa spins it). Without access to the real paper (or good science reporting) it's hard to tell.

   I agree that they're building it Dembski-style (unnknow natural cause is a pain), but it's all they have so far. On the bright side, unlike Dembski, they're publishing in relevant journals and are being forced to stricter methodology and reasoning than Dembski is restricted to. Further, they're working with fewer unknowns than Dembski, so that narrows their work a little. God's properties aren't known, but those of chemistry are. Now, Martian life is something of a toss up, but that natural selection applies is a pretty good assumption.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Maybe so.. Its something I will have to wait for concensus on, unless I hit the lottery sometime soon.

 

[npetreley]

This is much better proof of life on Mars. I have it on good authority that this is actually a bust of Elvis.

But this is the clincher. Clearly Mars is either itself alive, or it is sending one of the other planets a valentine.

 

[Finrod]

The verdict on the rock swings back and forth. I would hold off on believing anything about the rock for awhile longer since it is so contested.

I don't think this will change any current religions thinkings. It may add in a few more sects like pople that believe the Garden of Eden is on Mars and the flood happened there. But I don't think evidence every ever hurt a faith.


Plus, it would add additional credibility to the panspermia and transpermia concepts- perhaps abiogenesis only occurred on earth or only on mars, and that one seeded the other.

But, it's best to just be an observer right now.