http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24920193-952,00.html

Oops, I duplicated posts - never mind

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24920193-952,00.html

I guess they have to be careful when formulating newspaper story headlines so that they achieve the required objective. To convey a sense of truth ? Don't be daft - the objective is to sell newspapers.

I guess if they put Traces of Methane on Mars, nobody would read it, and if they put "Traces of Methane which may or may not be due to life or geology" it wouldn't fit in a headline.

Some people just read the headlines. For some people that fall into that category, they have found life on Mars already. Maybe it's not intelligent life - maybe Mars is just inhabited by knife wielding bogan racists who have an aversion to anything that comes from Earth, the blue planet. If it's not red, it's dead. They can't come here and wear space helmets - they could be concealing explosives! or worse - Religious texts.

One of the places that this could be coming from is Elysium Planum. Under the sands of Mars, there is something amounting to a layer of water, which probably emanated from a volcanic vent then boiled and froze as it was boiling, leaving ice with a honeycomb of bubbles containing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and water vapour. Over millions of years, the surface of Mars is bombarded by high energy Cosmic rays (mostly electrons). These cause the gases in these bubbles to split into atmoic ions and recombine. So we have CO2 and H2O. Guess what we get when a Carbon recombines with four hydrogens? - That's right - methane. No life required.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn16408-rover-five-years/1

This month, NASA's twin Mars rovers are celebrating their fifth anniversary on the Red Planet, long outlasting the three months they were scheduled to survive (find out the three secrets to their success). This gallery highlights the rovers' biggest discoveries and most stunning images.

NASA's twin rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, blasted off Earth on 10 June and 7 July 2003 and landed on opposite sides of the Red Planet on 4 January and 25 January 2004, respectively. Their mission was initially scheduled to last three months. (Illustration: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/dn16408-rover-five-years/a%20rover%20illo.jpg

Almost immediately after landing in a region of Mars called Meridiani Planum, Opportunity made a watershed discovery: rocks at its landing site had formed in ancient acidic lakes. The evidence came from hematite - which almost always forms in water - in the form of tiny spherules called "blueberries" (pictured); distinctively curved lines of sediment that resulted from the gentle sweeping motion of a water current; and sulphate salts that may have been left behind when salty water evaporated (though other researchers have argued that volcanism or meteorite impacts could explain the sulphate sediments). (Image: NASA/JPL/Cornell/USGS)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/dn16408-rover-five-years/a%20blueberries.jpg

Unlike its twin, Spirit did not immediately find evidence of water at its landing site in Gusev Crater. Orbital images had suggested the crater was once an ancient lake, but Spirit turned up little besides basaltic lava flows for its first six months on the planet (the lava may have buried evidence of any lake sediments once there). But the rover enjoyed a reversal of fortune when it reached the higher terrain of the Columbia hills, which are even older than the approximately 3 billion-year-old volcanic plains on Gusev's floor. It found intriguing sulphur-rich rocks that appear to have formed in the presence of water. The rock in this image, named Clovis, contains an iron-bearing mineral called goethite that can form only in water. (Image: NASA/JPL/Cornell)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/dn16408-rover-five-years/a%20clovis%20without%20hole.jpg

In January 2005, Opportunity found an unusual, metallic-looking rock (pictured) near its discarded heat shield. It used onboard spectrometers to confirm that the rock was made of iron and nickel, showing that indeed it must be a meteorite that had fallen from the sky - the first meteorite ever found on another planet. In April 2006, Spirit followed suit, spotting two iron meteorites. Such metallic meteorites, which make up just a few percent of the space rocks expected to litter the Martian surface, are easier to identify based on their appearance and spectral properties than the more common "stony" meteorites. (Image: NASA/JPL/Cornell)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/dn16408-rover-five-years/a%20opportunity%20iron%20meteorite.jpg

In March 2005, Spirit captured images of two dust devils - vortices that lift dust from the surface into the air - in one day (one can faintly be seen in this image). It was the first time any had been seen on Mars since the Mars Pathfinder mission in 1997. Around the same time, a separate dust devil apparently also swept the rover's solar panels clean of a year's accumulation of dust, restoring their power output to 93% of initial levels. (Image: NASA)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/dn16408-rover-five-years/a%20dust%20devil%20story.jpg

In April 2005, Opportunity got stuck as it was crossing a series of shallow, sandy ridges. It ultimately spent about five weeks trapped on a 30-centimetre-high ripple of soil nicknamed "Purgatory Dune" (shown here in this vertical projection woven together from images from its navigation camera). When it got stuck, its primary objective had been speed. It was cruising along at 200 metres a day and most of its software safeguards - which could have detected that its wheels were slipping - were turned off. That caused the rover to dig itself in more deeply than it would have otherwise. Mission members learned from the mishap, freeing the rover by driving it backwards and instituting periodic wheel 'slip checks'. In June 2006, those changes helped the rover quickly extricate itself from a sandy spot nicknamed "Jammerbugt", Danish for the "Bay of Lamentation". (Image: NASA/JPL)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/dn16408-rover-five-years/a%20dunes.jpg

On 19 May 2005, Spirit captured this spectacular view as the Sun sank below the rim of Gusev crater. This was voted the most popular image in a rover photo contest. (Image: NASA/JPL/Texas A and M/Cornell)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/dn16408-rover-five-years/a%20rover%20sunset.jpg

In May 2007, mission scientists reported a major discovery with Spirit: evidence for rocks made almost entirely of silica, a telltale sign they were formed in water. Ironically, a mechanical failure led to the find - one of its six wheels had locked up in 2006 and had to be simply dragged along after that. The immobilised wheel uncovered a patch of bright soil that an onboard spectrometer revealed was rich in silica, which had not been seen before by either rover.(Image: NASA/JPL/Cornell)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/dn16408-rover-five-years/a%20silica%20valley%20white%20track.jpg

Silica-rich soil (previous slide), which likely formed when large amounts of water interacted with hot volcanic material, was found in the Eastern Valley - dubbed "silica valley" - by Spirit. Its observations had earlier shown that a nearby, raised plateau called Home Plate probably resulted from an explosive volcanic event involving water. Layers of volcanic material may have filled in a crater that became Home Plate when its surroundings eroded away. (Image: NASA/JPL/U of Arizona)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/dn16408-rover-five-years/a%20silica%20valley%20map.jpg

In September 2006, Opportunity reached an 800-metre-wide crater called Victoria after travelling more than 9 kilometres from its landing site in Eagle Crater. Victoria is 40 times as wide as Eagle Crater, and about five times as wide as Endurance Crater, which it studied for about six months in 2004. (Image: NASA/JPL/MSSS/Ohio State University)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/dn16408-rover-five-years/a%20rover%20traverse%20eagle%20to%20victoria.jpg

Opportunity began descending into Victoria Crater in September 2007, after a year of skirting its rim and waiting out dust storms. The meteorite impact that gouged out the crater long ago exposed layers of bedrock 30 metres deep, about six times deeper than anything Opportunity previously had the chance to examine. Importantly, the full depth of Victoria crater - and indeed the entire region explored by the rover in Meridiani Planum over its lifetime - is covered by sulphate sandstones. These rocks are thought to have formed several billion years ago when sand dunes came into contact with water - possibly in shallow lakes - and cemented into solid rocks. "The environment of deposition was regional, not local," says rover scientist Ray Arvidson. This image shows a cliff on Victoria's rim called Cape St Vincent. (Image: NASA/JPL/Cornell)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/dn16408-rover-five-years/a%20cape%20st%20vincent.jpg

Opportunity clambered out of Victoria Crater in August 2008 and began heading towards a gaping crater called Endeavour, which is more than 20 times as big as Victoria. The 12-km trek - which spans nearly the same distance as the rover has travelled since landing on Mars in 2004 - is expected to take more than two years. This false-colour image is part of a 360° panorama taken in late 2008. At that time, the rover parked in one spot for a few weeks while the Sun was between Mars and Earth, limiting communication with ground controllers. (Image: NASA/JPL/Cornell)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/dn16408-rover-five-years/a%20opportunity%20panorama%20now.jpg

Spirit lies farther south than Opportunity, so it receives less sunlight on its solar panels during wintertime in the southern hemisphere. As a result, it has to hunker down in one spot to conserve energy over the long, cold season. The rover took this northward-looking false-colour image in January 2008 from its hibernation spot on the northern edge of the Home Plate plateau (Husband Hill, part of the Columbia Hills, lies on the horizon). It hasn't moved much since then because its solar panels are coated with dust - a situation that turned critical after a dust storm in November 2008 that cut its power levels to an all-time low. The recuperating rover will soon start to drive to a hill dubbed Von Braun and a small crater called Goddard some 200 to 300 metres away. (Image: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Cornell University)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/galleries/dn16408-rover-five-years/a%20spirit%20now%20overwintering.jpg

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/06/25/mars.water/index.html?hpt=T1

(CNN) -- Conditions favorable to life may once have existed all over Mars, the European Space Agency said Friday.

Two spacecraft have found evidence that liquid water was widespread over the red planet.

The ESA's Mars Express and NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter have discovered hydrated silicate minerals in the northern lowlands of Mars, a clear indication that water once flowed there, the ESA said.

The two spacecraft had previously found thousands of small outcrops in the planet's southern hemisphere where rock minerals had been altered by water, it said. Many of these outcrops are in the form of hydrated clay minerals known as phyllosilicates. They indicate the planet's southern hemisphere was once much warmer and wetter than it is today.

No such sites had been found in the northern lowlands until this week, the ESA said. The northern lowlands are covered in thick blankets of lava and sediments up to several kilometers thick and that had hampered efforts to probe what lay beneath.

The ESA's Mars Express found the first hints of water in the northern plains, but the outcrops were small and more detailed observations were needed to confirm the evidence, the ESA said.

NASA's Orbiter provided higher resolution data that showed at least nine northern craters with phyllosilicates or other hydrated silicates, the ESA said. The finding was reported this week in the journal Science.

Those minerals formed in wet environments and were identical to those found in the southern hemisphere.

"We can now say that the planet was altered on a global scale by liquid water more than 4 billion years ago," said the report's lead author, John Carter of the University of Paris.

Scientists said it's difficult to draw conclusions about the type of environment that existed on Mars when it had water, but they do have some clues.

The sites "are rich in iron and magnesium, but less in aluminum. Together with the close proximity of olivine, which is easily modified by water, this indicates that the exposure to water lasted only tens to hundreds of millions of years," said Jean-Pierre Bibring, the OMEGA principal investigator from the University of Paris.

The scientists' search concentrated on 91 sizeable craters where incoming asteroids have punched down the planet's surface by several kilometers, exposing "ancient crustal material," the ESA said.

The results could also suggest sites for future Mars landers, because evidence of water during the planet's early history suggests conditions in those spots may have been favorable to the evolution of primitive life, the ESA said.

Interesting.....

It has been a common theory that there 'has' been water on Mars, and/or life of some type...

It's a very interesting article......Makes me wonder how complex 'Martian Life' may have been in the past....

I don't think there was ever life on Mars, but I agree that there was liquid water once.

If there was ever life, it would have been very primitive. I'll explain that if anybody is interested.

People make astonishing assertions about Mars. There is a lot of wishful thinking.

Quote:

If there was ever life, it would have been very primitive. I'll explain that if anybody is interested.

I'm all ears.

I believe one theory which some accept as probable is that bacterial
or some other sort of single cell life  started on Mars & moved
to earth via asteroids colliding with Mars -
which broke off small pieces of rock containing life that
subsequently landed on earth.

One powerful reason is that conditions for life were at least a
billion years in advance on Mars compared to the Earth.

The real search on Mars is for fossilised remains of single
cell organisms.
To find life still living there, would be a bonus.

Wouldn't it be great if that Mars rover found a piece of
rock with some fossil remains?
I don't think it carries a microscope - unfortunately as
fossilised bacteria is too small to be seen with their camera.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 2:24am:

I believe one theory which some accept as probable is that bacterial or some other sort of single cell life  started on Mars & moved to earth via asteroids colliding with Mars - which broke off small pieces of rock containing life that subsequently landed on earth. One powerful reason is that conditions for life were at least a billion years in advance on Mars compared to the Earth. The real search on Mars is for fossilised remains of single cell organisms. To find life still living there, would be a bonus. Wouldn't it be great if that Mars rover found a piece of rock with some fossil remains? I don't think it carries a microscope - unfortunately as fossilised bacteria is too small to be seen with their camera.

You believe that theory.but you don't believe there is a God?  ;)

There has been research regarding the survival of bacteria in space, but only within the relative protection of the Earth's magnetic field (in Low Earth Orbit). Of course we know that some bacteria survived on the moon within a TV camera with a certain degree of screening afforded by the metal casing.

We know that there are extremophiles on Earth which have adapted to their very specific environments which include high salinity, extreme cold, highly acidic environments and high exposure to radiation (deinococcus radiodurans), but any one extremophile would die when planted outside it's environment. For example d. radiodurans is not happy in saline environments or extreme cold.

Extremophiles have DNA sequences in common with other terrestrial organisms. They have obviously evolved for specific environments. In order for that to happen, you need an abundance of life in the first place in order for an organism to specialise.

When it comes to Mars, you're talking about extremely acidic, extremely saline conditions PLUS radiation. Mars never had a significant global magnetic field.

Researchers such as Chandra Wickramasinghe have a lot of faith on the concept of panspermia with very little evidence. The red rains of Kerala was one example where he made international headlines for his claims that they were evidence of panspermia.
 
The whole idea of life on Mars is one enormous 'what if'. Nobody knows, and there is no evidence whatsoever that there ever was life on Mars.

What was it you said elsewhere about extraordinary claims? - yet you are happy to accept a theory that had absolutely no factual basis except for the collective navel contemplation of a group of astrobiologists (is that a real job anyway?).

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2010 at 10:55pm:

Quote: If there was ever life, it would have been very primitive. I'll explain that if anybody is interested. I'm all ears.

It comes down to the fact that conditions were very extreme. The evidence indicates that the atmosphere was very thick at one stage - thick enough to support liquid water at the surface, but the conditions were highly acidic (as indicated by the presence of certain minerals)

Of course we base a lot of our conclusions on Earth based life - It's a sample of one, but life which uses oxygen in cellular respiration has a considerable energy advantage to anaerobic respiration eg Iron, Sulphate etc. There is nothing that suggests that Mars ever got to the stage of having oxygen-generating microbes such as Cyanobacteria which changed the atmosphere on Earth.

As a result, any life that may have existed would have been anaerobic, and consequently much less able to evolve.

That's it in a nutshell. It's an opinion. I don't claim anything more than that.

Muso said

Quote:

What was it you said elsewhere about extraordinary claims? - yet you are happy to accept a theory that had absolutely no factual basis except for the collective navel contemplation of a group of astrobiologists (is that a real job anyway?).

There is not enough extraordinary evidence to back up the claims
that life may have started on Mars.
It just seems to be the best theory so far.
It certainly has more credibility than:
The guy with a beard did it.

Don't stress too much about Muso's conflicted views on spirituality, he has had an each way bet, and failed to get a collect on either.
Understandable as it may seem to try and distance oneself from the more extreme and strident adherents of any contrived proposition, it can leave one exposed and vulnerable, when there is a real position of integrity at stake.

All that aside, the issue of Life On Mars is of concern to me primarily for what version is the most enjoyable, and outside of the original, I find this contemporary rendition by a somewhat haggard looking and unglamorous David Bowie, particularly well done, but must admit to a lifelong love for so much of his music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOo8J_CLCA4&feature=related

Bobby. wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 11:18am:

Muso said Quote: What was it you said elsewhere about extraordinary claims? - yet you are happy to accept a theory that had absolutely no factual basis except for the collective navel contemplation of a group of astrobiologists (is that a real job anyway?). There is not enough extraordinary evidence to back up the claims that life may have started on Mars. It just seems to be the best theory so far. It certainly has more credibility than: The guy with a beard did it.

As I've said before, I don't believe in any deities other than the ones inside the heads of believers. On the subject of life, I still think that the best theory so far is that the chemicals for life were produced inside comets and that life itself evolved on Earth as a once only event and started off in the form of prokaryotic bacteria. That's my opinion, and it's based on the main body of evidence.

If life had evolved more than once in the past 4.5 billion years, we'd see two or more distinct lineages.  The same would apply if life had evolved in the water and organic chemical rich interiors of comets, heated by the radioactive decay of Aluminium-26. As it stands, all life on Earth is related to all other life, with the possible exception of nanobes for the simple reason that we don't know enough about them.

I think that the chemical ingredients for life are widespread throughout the galaxy, but life itself is too fragile to travel across interstellar distances or even between planets.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 11:57am:

Don't stress too much about Muso's conflicted views on spirituality, he has had an each way bet, and failed to get a collect on either.

I make no secret about my views on spirituality. I believe it to be an essential property of the human mind. I am after all, an atheist. (Today being Sunday)

Muso

Quote:

I think that the chemical ingredients for life are widespread throughout the galaxy, but life itself is too fragile to travel across interstellar distances or even between planets.

You are wrong there.
Bacteria can survive inside frozen rocks for almost an eternity.
They just need to be thawed out & they start multiplying again.
Look at Antarctica.
Frozen core samples of bacteria in ice that is thousands of
years old started living again when thawed out.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 12:37pm:

Muso Quote: I think that the chemical ingredients for life are widespread throughout the galaxy, but life itself is too fragile to travel across interstellar distances or even between planets. You are wrong there. Bacteria can survive inside frozen rocks for almost an eternity. They just need to be thawed out & they start multiplying again. Look at Antarctica. Frozen core samples of bacteria in ice that is thousands of years old started living again when thawed out.

1. What proportion of meteors strike the Earth from outside the solar system do you think?

2. Even in the tests involving bacteria in LEO for most bacteria, the proportion remaining viable after a short term was less than 10%.

The only exception to this were salt tolerant bacteria which survived within a salt crystal, but  given the vast interstellar distances and the accuracy required to hit a candidate planet, you're talking about some extremely low (almost negligible) probabilities.  

The probability that life initiated on Earth (abiogenesis) is much higher. Recent research shows that clay minerals could have played an important role in forming primitive cell walls.

Quote:

1. What proportion of meteors strike the Earth from outside the solar system do you think?

I have no idea but I can assure you that the number is huge.
Meteorites from Mars have been found in Antarctic ice.

Frozen bacteria can survive almost forever so I don't know
where you're coming from.

May I remind you that I'm an amateur astronomer?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 2:07pm:

Quote: 1. What proportion of meteors strike the Earth from outside the solar system do you think? I have no idea but I can assure you that the number is huge. Meteorites from Mars have been found in Antarctic ice. Frozen bacteria can survive almost forever so I don't know where you're coming from. May I remind you that I'm an amateur astronomer?

I said from 'outside the solar system'. As far as I'm aware there are none, although I used to be in regular contact with a researcher from the University of Manchester who worked on 'star dust'

Now that stuff is interesting.  There are certainly Martian meteorites, there are Lunar meteorites, meteorites from Vesta and Ceres, and the usual chondrites, achondrites and metallic meteorites.

You can tell where meteorites come from within the solar system by their isotope ratios.

I'll tell you a story some day in private about meteors, but we were talking about Mars.  

Quote:

I'll tell you a story some day in private about meteors, but we were talking about Mars.

Tell me now - tell everyone.

Quote:

and that life itself evolved on Earth as a once only event and started off in the form of prokaryotic bacteria

Wouldn't it have started of as something much simpler that can no longer survive in nature?


Quote:

If life had evolved more than once in the past 4.5 billion years, we'd see two or more distinct lineages.

Traditionally the theory of evolution rules out chimerism, but that is obviously not the case. Thus, universal common ancestry is certainly not proven from the evidence.

Freediver - it may be the case that only chains of carbon based
molecules can form life.
Maybe DNA is the only method possible for it to do so?
If so all life in the universe may have DNA.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

Freediver - it may be the case that only chains of carbon based molecules can form life. Maybe DNA is the only method possible for it to do so? If so all life in the universe may have DNA.

Yeah - I'm pretty sure the Na'vi have DNA.  :P

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 2:57pm:

Quote: and that life itself evolved on Earth as a once only event and started off in the form of prokaryotic bacteria Wouldn't it have started of as something much simpler that can no longer survive in nature?

Er yeah - you're right. Strictly speaking I meant that all life probably branched out from prokaryotic bacteria.

On the other point, I'll get back to you. I have to do my weekly commute now.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 2:32pm:

Quote: I'll tell you a story some day in private about meteors, but we were talking about Mars. Tell me now - tell everyone.

Still waiting, waiting waiting.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 11:28pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 27th, 2010 at 2:32pm: Quote: I'll tell you a story some day in private about meteors, but we were talking about Mars. Tell me now - tell everyone. Still waiting, waiting waiting.

See at the top of the Forum where it says you have x messages and 1 new message?

OK Muso - I replied to you privately.
cheers
Bobby.

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2010 at 2:57pm:

Traditionally the theory of evolution rules out chimerism, but that is obviously not the case. Thus, universal common ancestry is certainly not proven from the evidence.

There goes that word 'proven' again. We have evidence that supports such a claim in certain DNA sequences that are common to all Earth based life, but you're right.

This life doesn't come with any free tickets to the land of 100% certainty.

For one thing, we have absolutely no idea whatsoever about the DNA of the Ediacarans or Vendians.

Why does the theory of Evolution rule out chimerism? If we're talking about the same thing, chimerism is just a regressive trait,  as albinism is. We'll continue to get examples throughout populations, but as they are non-viable, they don't pass on their characteristics.

Stay cool. Jah bless, man.

We need a new mission to Mars with robots that are closer
to being human like.
They need to be able to use a geologists hammer & inspect
layers of rock in the search for fossil remains.
They must have access to a microscope to see any
possible microscopic fossils.
I hope we have the answer to the question of life
on Mars within my lifetime.
I really want to know.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 28^th, 2010 at 1:34pm:

We need a new mission to Mars with robots that are closer to being human like. They need to be able to use a geologists hammer & inspect layers of rock in the search for fossil remains. They must have access to a microscope to see any possible microscopic fossils. I hope we have the answer to the question of life on Mars within my lifetime. I really want to know.

That might be problematic. There are sedimentary rocks in Western Australia that are 3.5 billion years old, (BIF or banded ironstone formation) and  may represent fossils from the time that there was little or no oxygen in the atmosphere. The problem is that geologists can't agree whether they represent life or not.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Banded_iron_formation

On Mars, the evidence from Opportunity and Spirit, together with remote sensing shows that Mars never got to the stage where oxygen started to form in the atmosphere.

We have no idea how likely it is for life to form, and we have no idea how likely it is for anaerobes to suddenly start producing oxygen, resulting in their almost certain extinction, but making it possible for microbes that use oxygen for respiration to exist.

Consequently, if they  had oceans on Mars, which current research indicates,  they were acidic and very rich in iron and magnesium*, probably very similar to those on Earth in most senses.

The Earth's early oceans probably had more aluminium, sodium and potassium due to crustal differentiation, which never occurred to any great extent on Mars.  While there are clay minerals on Mars, they probably formed later than the so-called Noachian period which was the period with widespread oceans.

Apart from anything else, the Martian environment never had a global magnetic field like the Earth's. It was always more hostile, and probably contained strong oxidizing agents which tends to rip apart organic molecules.

While we'll never know for sure, I'd put my money on abiogenesis on Earth.

I read a paper somewhere that talked about probabilities of different scenarios. The Martian life origins scenario was in there, but was two orders of magnitude down compared to life originating on Earth. I've probably no hope of finding that paper again :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*That acidic environment is confirmed by the presence of magnesium and iron sulphates, and Goethite, hematite spherules etc at Meridiani Planum.

Muso - I think you are drawing a long bow.

Life on earth can thrive in sea water at volcanic vents where
there is no light, and also at high temperatures & pressures.
Therefore it could possibly survive on Mars.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 28^th, 2010 at 6:10pm:

Muso - I think you are drawing a long bow. Life on earth can thrive in sea water at volcanic vents where there is no light, and also at high temperatures & pressures. Therefore it could possibly survive on Mars.

Well to start with, I don't discount the possibility that life could exist even today in underground fissures, especially near volcanic areas. A certain Italian researcher (Vittorio Formasino I think) keeps finding traces of methane  and formaldehyde in the atmosphere, so it's not impossible.

All I'm saying is that on the balance of probability, life probably originated here on Earth.

OK, the inference that you make doesn't really follow logically. It's like saying that salamanders can withstand extreme heat, therefore they can survive extreme cold. It's very seductive, but there is no rationale behind the statement.  It's certainly not impossible, but nothing you said there described the conditions that organisms would face on Mars.

There are many differences between the extreme conditions on Earth and on Mars. Liquid water is the big one, sodium chloride is another, a pH of around 8.3 is another, but the biggest one of all is the enormous pool of microbial life on Earth. It's that all-pervading life on Earth that makes such extremophiles possible, because it gives evolution a chance.  

On Earth, microbes have adapted to niche environments primarily because there is a big enough pool so that the best adapted organisms can survive these extreme conditions.

There is no evidence that there was ever a large abundance of life on Mars, and there is plenty of evidence that there is either no life or very little life on Mars today.  

Again, I don't doubt that it's possible that life could have originated on Mars first/ that there could be a God, but on the balance of probability, I don't think so, for both claims.

It would probably be nice if there was life on Mars or even if there was a God, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily the case.

Can you see what I'm getting at? I'm saying that you're drawing a very long bow if you believe the theory that life began on Mars.

Of course, you've gone from 'believe that theory' to 'could possibly', so I think you understand.

Don't get me wrong. Faith can be a good thing. ;)

Muso - Life on Mars would have had a billion years head start
compared to Earth & the fact that rocks were exchanged between Earth & Mars
tells me that the theory I wrote about is the most likely origin
of life on Earth.
The only other one that may be just as powerful is that comets spread life around the whole galaxy!
(It's possible that some comets reach escape velocity from
other solar systems)

Quote:

We have evidence that supports such a claim in certain DNA sequences that are common to all Earth based life, but you're right.

That doesn't rule out chimerism and multiple origins.


Quote:

Why does the theory of Evolution rule out chimerism?

It's just traditionally part of the theory 'package'. It becomes an assumption with inheritance and the branching tree bit. Nothing actually rules it out, because the theory is infinitely adaptive.


Quote:

If we're talking about the same thing, chimerism is just a regressive trait,  as albinism is.

Maybe I have the wrong term. I mean inheriting genetic info from two different species.


Quote:

Well to start with, I don't discount the possibility that life could exist even today in underground fissures, especially near volcanic areas. A certain Italian researcher (Vittorio Formasino I think) keeps finding traces of methane  and formaldehyde in the atmosphere, so it's not impossible.

It does exist - whole ecosystems that are based on consuming volcanic energy rather than solar energy.

Quote:

It does exist - whole ecosystems that are based on consuming volcanic energy rather than solar energy.

Correct & there were many active volcanos on Mars.
There was water too.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 28^th, 2010 at 7:10pm:

Muso - Life on Mars would have had a billion years head start compared to Earth & the fact that rocks were exchanged between Earth & Mars tells me that the theory I wrote about is the most likely origin of life on Earth. The only other one that may be just as powerful is that comets spread life around the whole galaxy! (It's possible that some comets reach escape velocity from other solar systems)

I've heard people say that before, but I'm not sure where they got it from. The first oceans probably appeared on Earth about 3.9 billion years ago.  

The first oceans on Mars appear to have formed  late in the Noachian period, around 3.5 billion years ago, although the exact timing of Martian geology is subject to considerable interpretation.  

Both Mars and Earth formed around 4.5 - 4.6 billion years ago - about the same time as the solar system itself. We can tell that from isotope analysis.

There is no evidence that conditions for life were better on Mars earlier than on Earth. The other point is that the Earth rapidly developed a geomagnetic field, unlike Mars. There is evidence of some localised magnetism in the Southern hemisphere of Mars, but it never became a strong global magnetic field.

All this becomes important when we consider that the solar wind was about 100 times stronger 3.5 million years ago and the magnetic field deflected the worst of the solar wind (towards the poles).

The first conclusive life on Earth can be dated at about 2.9 Billion years ago. There are possible indicators of life 3.5 billion years ago from highly metamorphised deposits in Greenland, but these are by no means conclusive.  

To state that it is more likely that life originated on Mars, first you need to show that life actually formed on the more hostile conditions on Mars in the first place. We have no evidence that there was ever life on Mars, and we have plenty of evidence that there was never extensive life on Mars.  

Some researchers argue that the slightly alkaline conditions of the beginning of the Noachian. However it all depends what form that hypothetical life took. If it was bacteria that used sulfur or iron for their respiration, then the prime period would have been the end of the Noachian, by which time acidic seas had started to form.

For me, even though astrobiologists like to dream, Occam's razor seems to favour abiogenesis on Earth as the more likely scenario.

Let's put radiation levels in perspective. Radiation levels in interplanetary space today can rise to as high as 100,000 milli-rems per event in a flare, and constant exposure is approximately 1,000 milli-rems per day (30 times that on Earth, 10 times that on the Shuttle) and approximately double that on the surface of Mars (because it rotates). Approximately 80% of this radiation is in the form of high energy protons. Take conditions 3.5 billion years ago and you can multiply those radiation levels by roughly 100.  

Which kind of bacteria could have made the trip? Halobacteria? They would be the most likely to survive. They do pretty well in saline conditions, but not in high radiation conditions. Deinococcus radiodurans was certainly not around then.

Like you, I'd love to know whether or not there was ever life on Mars, but even if they find fossilised evidence, will it be convincing?

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2010 at 8:55pm:

Quote: Well to start with, I don't discount the possibility that life could exist even today in underground fissures, especially near volcanic areas. A certain Italian researcher (Vittorio Formasino I think) keeps finding traces of methane  and formaldehyde in the atmosphere, so it's not impossible. It does exist - whole ecosystems that are based on consuming volcanic energy rather than solar energy.

On Earth, that's not in dispute. I should have made it clearer that I was talking about Mars. Your points about inheriting DNA from two species is probably a good subject for another thread. There are or should be no sacred cows when it comes to evolutionary theory.  There was even a case for some  Lamarckian inheritance that was brought up recently (inherited immunity)- and that's about as close as you can get to a sacred cow. It certainly caused a stir.

Quote:

Both Mars and Earth formed around 4.5 - 4.6 billion years ago - about the same time as the solar system itself. We can tell that from isotope analysis.

As far as I know the first earth had an enormous collision with
another object which formed 2 objects:
one was the Earth & the other the moon.
This caused the whole Earth to melt & delayed the start of
life by 1 billion years compared to Mars.
Mars may have had more radiation but what if life on Mars
was protected by being in deep water?

Theia collided with the Proto-Earth around 4.5Ga ago, forming the moon, according to most interpretations.

At that time, at the beginning of the Hadean, the Earth was pretty hot and extremely volcanic anyway. Apart from anything else, there was a period of intense bombardment about then that was common to Mars and the Earth.

In any case, the first zircons can be dated to 4.4Ga, and indicated the presence of liquid water at the time of formation.  If you think the crust took 1 billion years to cool, that would place it around 3.5Ga, which is clearly incorrect.  

The moon itself is only about 30 million years younger than the rest of the solar system.  

Muso - are you saying that Bobby is wrong?

That's like saying that the Fonz is wrong! ;D

It's a subject that has interested me for years, and I've had the pleasure of discussing it with a number or researchers in the field over at the Unmanned Space Flight forum in the past. It's a very well moderated forum which I recommend to anybody.

Am I saying that you're wrong? No. This life doesn't come with 100% certainty, and even the Theia hypotheis has its problems that have not been fully resolved yet. I don't claim to be an expert in the field by any means. I'm just an interested amateur.

I'm just providing you with a background on why I have come to the conclusions that I have. There is no absolute certainty, but it's an absolutely fascinating subject.

I don't know where you're located in Australia, but the Mars Society is pretty active in Victoria and NSW. I've been a member for a number of years now:

http://www.marssociety.org.au

Thanks Muso.
I am not a member of the Mars society but I am a member
of an astronomical society.
I live in Melbourne & I enjoy taking photos of the cosmos
& talking about cosmology.
I am of the opinion that the Earth  is just one part of
a much larger picture.
To say that life started here is too close to religion.
We don't know if comets seed the universe or whether
life started on Mars but we have good theories.
Maybe life can start anywhere given the right conditions?
I just hope that one day we'll have some evidence
either way.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 11:20am:

Thanks Muso. I am not a member of the Mars society but I am a member of an astronomical society. I live in Melbourne & I enjoy taking photos of the cosmos & talking about cosmology. I am of the opinion that the Earth  is just one part of a much larger picture. To say that life started here is too close to religion. We don't know if comets seed the universe or whether life started on Mars but we have good theories. Maybe life can start anywhere given the right conditions? I just hope that one day we'll have some evidence either way.

I don't believe in abiogenesis because of religion. I think you've gathered that by now, but I don't dismiss it simply just because I want to distance myself from any religious viewpoint either. Religion for me only became relevant with the development of the human brain, and it's a very interesting insight into the workings of the human mind.

I'm not a dualist. When we die, we die. Our atoms, eventually become stardust anyway. Some of my atoms might have been shared with past celebrities, but our atoms and molecules don't define who we are. We change them throughout our lives anyway. We're more like the waves in an ocean than the ocean itself.

The answers to such questions of the formation of life are difficult, given a sample of 1.

Muso

Quote:

I'm not a dualist. When we die, we die. Our atoms, eventually become stardust anyway. Some of my atoms might have been shared with past celebrities, but our atoms and molecules don't define who we are. We change them throughout our lives anyway. We're more like the waves in an ocean than the ocean itself.

Science can now answer a very big question about our atoms.
Where will our atoms - we ourselves - end up?
Apparently one day the sun will swallow the earth  & we will become part
of a red giant.
Many 10's of billions of years after we will be sucked into a black hole at the center
of our galaxy.
Look up to the center of the Milky Way & that's where you're going! ;)

Bobby. wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 12:08am:

Muso Quote: I'm not a dualist. When we die, we die. Our atoms, eventually become stardust anyway. Some of my atoms might have been shared with past celebrities, but our atoms and molecules don't define who we are. We change them throughout our lives anyway. We're more like the waves in an ocean than the ocean itself. Science can now answer a very big question about our atoms. Where will our atoms - we ourselves - end up? Apparently one day the sun will swallow the earth  & we will become part of a red giant. Many 10's of billions of years after we will be sucked into a black hole at the center of our galaxy. Look up to the center of the Milky Way & that's where you're going! ;)

Of course some of the more volatile atoms that make up human beings (C, H, O, N etc) will be stripped off the atmosphere by the intense solar wind that would precede such an event. Maybe some of that stardust would reach escape velocity and  work its way into new solar systems eventually forming part of new life forms.  

As far as being sucked in, well that's not inevitable. As long as objects stay beyond 3 Schwarzschild radii  (the radius of the event horizon) the orbit will be stable. (fast, yes - up to 10% of the speed of light, but stable)  Black holes are just massive bodies - so massive that the gravitational forces prevent light from escaping. Objects can have a perfectly stable orbit around such an object without getting sucked it.

Of course as a black hole gets bigger, the Schwatzschild radius increases. If you are aware of any paper that suggests that the entire galaxy will collapse into the central black hole, I'd be interested in reading it.  It's not my understanding, but like everybody else, I could be wrong.

One of the cool things about being an amateur astronomer is that you can actually point to the centre of the galaxy, something that most people can not do. You can also make a circle of the ecliptic and say "that's the plane in which the planets orbit the sun"

The Heaven's Above Website is a good place for people to whet their appetite for observational astronomy.

http://www.heavens-above.com/

Bobby. wrote on Jun 28^th, 2010 at 6:10pm:

Muso - I think you are drawing a long bow. Life on earth can thrive in sea water at volcanic vents where there is no light, and also at high temperatures & pressures. Therefore it could possibly survive on Mars.

Surviving in such an environment, existing organisms moving into and occupying such a niche environment are a separate issue to evolving in such an environment.

Personally I think that there is TOO narrow a beam thrown on life possibilites on other worlds and environments..we have been constantly surprised by what has happened here on Earth.

I do think the longbow being drawn however is the one that suggests live from Mars emmigrated here to Earth.

locutius wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 10:26am:

Personally I think that there is TOO narrow a beam thrown on life possibilites on other worlds and environments..we have been constantly surprised by what has happened here on Earth.

I'm looking forward to the results from the Mars Scientific Laboratory (Curiosity), to be launched next year.  

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/msl20100701.html

Now that is designed to look for traces of life.

I think Io and Europa (moons of Jupiter) and even Enceladus (A moon of Saturn) would be interesting prospects for life.

It is a facinating subject and I loved listening to Carl Sagan talk about this..in fact Carl Sagan is super-nerdy-cool.

I read "Wheelers" by English mathematician Ian Stewart and reproductive biologist Jack Cohen a busy decade ago and this subject makes me want to get it back out of the box....(waiting for book shelves in our new home). I need about 10-12sqm of shelf space. Libraries make the best furniture.

Yes the moons of the gas giants are very interesting places and would dearly love to see what happens there. I know it is a lot to expect life period and complex life is in the realms of the fantastic...but I'm a sucker for a good imagination.

Speaking of extreme environments I have a book on order that I think will be facinating even though it will give me the shivers for sure.

"Blind Descent"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127937159&ft=1&f=1032

I will happily admit that I would only enter such a place if my childs life depended on it.

Quote:

Surviving in such an environment, existing organisms moving into and occupying such a niche environment are a separate issue to evolving in such an environment.

Do you know they are colonists? Why is it such a big difference anyway, given that early life was supposedly based on the soup rather than solar energy.

Muso

Quote:

As far as being sucked in, well that's not inevitable. As long as objects stay beyond 3 Schwarzschild radii  (the radius of the event horizon) the orbit will be stable. (fast, yes - up to 10% of the speed of light, but stable)  Black holes are just massive bodies - so massive that the gravitational forces prevent light from escaping. Objects can have a perfectly stable orbit around such an object without getting sucked it. Of course as a black hole gets bigger, the Schwatzschild radius increases. If you are aware of any paper that suggests that the entire galaxy will collapse into the central black hole, I'd be interested in reading it.  It's not my understanding, but like everybody else, I could be wrong.

Some people think that our solar system will be sucked into
a black hole & others don't.
There are theories either way.
A lot will depend on what happens when the Andromeda galaxy
collides with the Milky Way in billions of years.

locutius wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 11:23am:

It is a facinating subject and I loved listening to Carl Sagan talk about this..in fact Carl Sagan is super-nerdy-cool. I read "Wheelers" by English mathematician Ian Stewart and reproductive biologist Jack Cohen a busy decade ago and this subject makes me want to get it back out of the box....(waiting for book shelves in our new home). I need about 10-12sqm of shelf space. Libraries make the best furniture. Yes the moons of the gas giants are very interesting places and would dearly love to see what happens there. I know it is a lot to expect life period and complex life is in the realms of the fantastic...but I'm a sucker for a good imagination.

Any TV shows on the possibility of alien life fascinate me.
When I was a kid people who even thought that were
considered a little crazy but scientists actively search
for any signs now!

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 7:06pm:

Quote: Surviving in such an environment, existing organisms moving into and occupying such a niche environment are a separate issue to evolving in such an environment. Do you know they are colonists? Why is it such a big difference anyway, given that early life was supposedly based on the soup rather than solar energy.

It's not possible to know. It's more intuitive, based on what we know about the ability of bacteria to adapt very quickly to hostile environments.  

It's possible to adapt bacteria to eat industrial wastes containing heavy metals and cyanide for example. You can develop a strain of bacteria that works over a period of several months, by starting off with a stock of bacteria from , say sewage sludge and nutrient. Then very gradually increase the concentration of the waste material you want them to eat. Some of the stock will die, and a very small proportion will survive. From those which survive, will come others that are better adapted , and so on.

A lot of these extremophiles are highly adapted. For example d. radiodurans has resistance to radiation by having multiple copies of its genome and rapid DNA repair mechanisms. It's a very sophisticated organism which had to adapt (most probably from less sophisticated precursors) in order to survive in highly radioactive environments which is where it was initially found.  

It's a bit more difficult to envisage such a bacterium originating from scratch - the earliest organisms were probably a lot simpler than this.  

There has been some recent work on the genetic origins of extremophiles such as d. radiodurans.  They are quite recent.

Quote:

It's a bit more difficult to envisage such a bacterium originating from scratch - the earliest organisms were probably a lot simpler than this.

Who says?
Bacteria may have evolved in hot soupy water where there was no light.
The original forms of bacteria may have evolved in very harsh environments
& later learned to live in what we now consider to be a normal
environment.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2010 at 10:05am:

Quote: It's a bit more difficult to envisage such a bacterium originating from scratch - the earliest organisms were probably a lot simpler than this. Who says? Bacteria may have evolved in hot soupy water where there was no light. The original forms of bacteria may have evolved in very harsh environments & later learned to live in what we now consider to be a normal environment.

Well I was talking about modern extremophiles, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that these extremophiles that we have today came along much later in the scene.

I agree that we're probably talking about hot soupy water, probably underground for the first prokaryote precursors or protobionts.

D radiodurans is a highly adapted bacterium, as are the halobacteria. Halobacteria came later than Deinococcus actually.

For a start, I think we're probably talking about an RNA basis for the earliest protobacteria rather than DNA.

Thermophiles are a bit easier to envisage as being precursors of the earliest prokaryotes. Smaller and more primitive organisms are naturally suited to that kind of environment (hot soupy) anyway.

Quote:

It's a bit more difficult to envisage such a bacterium originating from scratch - the earliest organisms were probably a lot simpler than this.

That's because all the easy sources of material and energy have been consumed. Any new life originating from scratch would be competing against life with a few billion years head start.


Quote:

Well I was talking about modern extremophiles, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that these extremophiles that we have today came along much later in the scene.

What are those 'reasonable grounds'?


Quote:

Smaller and more primitive organisms are naturally suited to that kind of environment (hot soupy) anyway.

Other than the fact that it is what you are familiar with, what reason do you have for making the connection between the extreme environment and smaller organisms?

thanks for sharing..

muso wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 8:49am:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 28th, 2010 at 7:10pm: Muso - Life on Mars would have had a billion years head start compared to Earth & the fact that rocks were exchanged between Earth & Mars tells me that the theory I wrote about is the most likely origin of life on Earth. The only other one that may be just as powerful is that comets spread life around the whole galaxy! (It's possible that some comets reach escape velocity from other solar systems) I've heard people say that before, but I'm not sure where they got it from. The first oceans probably appeared on Earth about 3.9 billion years ago.   The first oceans on Mars appear to have formed  late in the Noachian period, around 3.5 billion years ago, although the exact timing of Martian geology is subject to considerable interpretation.   Both Mars and Earth formed around 4.5 - 4.6 billion years ago - about the same time as the solar system itself. We can tell that from isotope analysis. There is no evidence that conditions for life were better on Mars earlier than on Earth. The other point is that the Earth rapidly developed a geomagnetic field, unlike Mars. There is evidence of some localised magnetism in the Southern hemisphere of Mars, but it never became a strong global magnetic field. All this becomes important when we consider that the solar wind was about 100 times stronger 3.5 million years ago and the magnetic field deflected the worst of the solar wind (towards the poles). The first conclusive life on Earth can be dated at about 2.9 Billion years ago. There are possible indicators of life 3.5 billion years ago from highly metamorphised deposits in Greenland, but these are by no means conclusive.   To state that it is more likely that life originated on Mars, first you need to show that life actually formed on the more hostile conditions on Mars in the first place. We have no evidence that there was ever life on Mars, and we have plenty of evidence that there was never extensive life on Mars.   Some researchers argue that the slightly alkaline conditions of the beginning of the Noachian. However it all depends what form that hypothetical life took. If it was bacteria that used sulfur or iron for their respiration, then the prime period would have been the end of the Noachian, by which time acidic seas had started to form. For me, even though astrobiologists like to dream, Occam's razor seems to favour abiogenesis on Earth as the more likely scenario. Let's put radiation levels in perspective. Radiation levels in interplanetary space today can rise to as high as 100,000 milli-rems per event in a flare, and constant exposure is approximately 1,000 milli-rems per day (30 times that on Earth, 10 times that on the Shuttle) and approximately double that on the surface of Mars (because it rotates). Approximately 80% of this radiation is in the form of high energy protons. Take conditions 3.5 billion years ago and you can multiply those radiation levels by roughly 100.   Which kind of bacteria could have made the trip? Halobacteria? They would be the most likely to survive. They do pretty well in saline conditions, but not in high radiation conditions. Deinococcus radiodurans was certainly not around then. Like you, I'd love to know whether or not there was ever life on Mars, but even if they find fossilised evidence, will it be convincing?

Dear Muso,
I have further evidence:


http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/29/life-earth-originated-mars


Quote:

Life on earth 'began on Mars' Geochemist argues that seeds of life originated on Mars and were blasted to Earth by meteorites or volcanoes. Evidence is mounting that life on Earth may have started on Mars. A leading scientist has claimed that one particular element believed to be crucial to the origin of life would only have been available on the surface of the red planet. Professor Steven Benner, a geochemist, has argued that the "seeds" of life probably arrived on Earth in meteorites blasted off Mars by impacts or volcanic eruptions. As evidence, he points to the oxidised mineral form of the element molybdenum, thought to be a catalyst that helped organic molecules develop into the first living structures.

I can't make sense of some of the science by proclamation that's coming out of the Mars Exploration Rovers and MSL.  We know that the most primitive forms of life did not have oxygen-based respiration, and yet we have geoscientists saying that Mars had an oxygen rich atmosphere in its early history that made it more likely that life originated first on Mars.

I remain a sceptic.

Having said that, atmospheric oxygen is a signature of life. 

muso wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

Having said that, atmospheric oxygen is a signature of life.

Not a definitive  signature for life because there are other non biological sources for molecular oxygen to build up in a planets atmosphere

Astrobiologists prefer to look for sustained and constant methane presence in an planet's atmosphere - a far stronger signature for life because methane breaks down relatively quickly in the atmosphere (its decomposition half life being about 14 years)

if you find methane, even in low concentrations AND molecular oxygen in the planets atmospheric that combined evidence tells us there is some sort of sustained biological process occurring on the planets surface/oceans etc

Yes Muso & Chimp,
the rest of the article is a good explanation.
How can "tar" turn into life?



http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/29/life-earth-originated-mars


Quote:

"It's only when molybdenum becomes highly oxidised that it is able to influence how early life formed," said Benner, of the Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology in the US. "This form of molybdenum couldn't have been available on Earth at the time life first began, because three billion years ago, the surface of the Earth had very little oxygen, but Mars did. "It's yet another piece of evidence which makes it more likely that life came to Earth on a Martian meteorite, rather than starting on this planet." All living things are made from organic matter, but simply adding energy to organic molecules will not create life. Instead, left to themselves, organic molecules become something more like tar or asphalt, said Prof Benner. He added: "Certain elements seem able to control the propensity of organic materials to turn to tar, particularly boron and molybdenum, so we believe that minerals containing both were fundamental to life first starting. "Analysis of a Martian meteorite recently showed that there was boron on Mars; we now believe that the oxidised form of molybdenum was there too." Another reason why life would have struggled to start on early Earth was that it was likely to have been covered by water, said Benner. Water would have prevented sufficient concentrations of boron forming and is also corrosive to RNA, a DNA cousin believed to be the first genetic molecule to have appeared. Although there was water on early Mars, it covered much less of the planet. "The evidence seems to be building that we are actually all Martians; that life started on Mars and came to Earth on a rock," said Benner, speaking at the Goldschmidt 2013 conference in Florence, Italy. "It's lucky that we ended up here nevertheless, as certainly Earth has been the better of the two planets for sustaining life. If our hypothetical Martian ancestors had remained on Mars, there might not have been a story to tell."

Chimp_Logic wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

muso wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 6:57pm: Having said that, atmospheric oxygen is a signature of life.  Not a definitive  signature for life because there are other non biological sources for molecular oxygen to build up in a planets atmosphere Astrobiologists prefer to look for sustained and constant methane presence in an planet's atmosphere - a far stronger signature for life because methane breaks down relatively quickly in the atmosphere (its decomposition half life being about 14 years) if you find methane, even in low concentrations AND molecular oxygen in the planets atmospheric that combined evidence tells us there is some sort of sustained biological process occurring on the planets surface/oceans etc

You're right with oxygen, but there are all kinds of ways methane can be produced. I'm thinking particularly of Carbon dioxide/ water ices on Mars. These usually have bubbles in them which capture  the atmosphere (mainly nitrogen). Bombard these with energetic particles from the sun (mainly high energy protons), and you get free radicals which can recombine to form methane, formaldehyde, oxygen, ozone,  ammonia and just about any simple molecules that contain Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen.

The polar ice caps of Mars are continually sublimating and reforming depending on the season. Traces of these substances are released almost continuously.   

Then there is photolysis of the CO2 in the atmosphere by UV.

Titan (the largest moon of Saturn) has an atmosphere containing methane (1.6%) and ammonia.   

Astrobiology always strikes me as a highly speculative deductive process based on very little evidence.

Muso,

Quote:

Astrobiology always strikes me as a highly speculative deductive process based on very little evidence.

Still - my point is that more & more evidence points to
life originating on Mars & then coming here.

The trouble is that speculation doesn't come with error bars.

muso wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 10:55am:

The trouble is that speculation doesn't come with error bars.

Hi Muso,
but surely conditions were ripe for life on Mars well before the earth?
We know that asteroids from Mars hit earth & they could have contained
bacteria which may have seeded life on Earth.

Remember also that the old Earth was hit by another planet
& the result was a new Earth & our Moon.
Mars however was not hit in this way & was therefore given an uninterrupted head start.

cheers

Bobby

In line with your signature, we need to submit it to some skeptical scrutiny.

The latest evidence shows a thick oxygen rich atmosphere on Mars up to about 4 billion years ago. Prior to 4 billion years, there was probably surface water,and there is some evidence of water at neutral pH (montmorillonite)

At about 4 billion years bp, a body about the size of Pluto flew past and ripped away most of the early Martian atmosphere. Since that time there has been a tenuous atmosphere where volcanic offgassing is balanced by loss of atmosphere to space.

So far so good. What was the receiving environment like on Earth around this time? Well, prior to 4 billion years bp, the Earth was in the Hadean period of the Pre Cambrian.

It was about this time that a body the size of Mars collided with the Earth forming the Moon. Sometime within that 500-600 million year period you have to fit in the initial cooling and formation of the Earth's crust (250 million years should do it ) then you need another 100-200 million years after the collision that formed the moon, so it doesn't give us much of a window for life to be established.

In short, it was not a very hospitable receiving environment.

See what I mean?

It's a very seductive idea, that of life originating on Mars, but there are too many sequential low probability events.

I don't know what they're going on about with respect to Molybdenum in a high oxidation state, but there was so much banging and crashing going on in this era, that it could have come from anywhere.  For that matter, how do we know that the Molybdenum salts didn't arrive on Earth from Mars and initiate the abiogenesis here on Earth?  It's much more plausible given the toasty interplanetary environment of the early solar system.

I have a contact at Manchester University. He's an expert on carbonaceous chondrites. I might contact him to get a heads up on the latest research in that area. 

If microbes adapted to a high oxygen environment on Mars had impacted on the Hadean Period Earth, how successful would they have adapted or even survived in the new environment?

The other problem with the Martian abiogenesis theory is that it requires nutrients on Earth to allow survival and reproduction of those organisms. 

The problem is that we don't really hold many of the early jigsaw pieces, and there are a lot of low probability events.  All we have is a lot of assumptions and too many degrees of freedom for a viable solution.

Do we know how many times life started? Was it only once?

Dear Muso,
an interesting reply.

I hope the jigsaw puzzle will fit together from evidence obtained
from the Curiosity Mars rover.
Imagine if ancient fossils are found!

Your answer seems to say that we will never know the truth.
If we can work out details of Big Bang then surely we shall have answers to these questions one day?

cheers
Bobby

A couple of very old questions I noticed:


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 11:10am:

Quote: Well I was talking about modern extremophiles, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that these extremophiles that we have today came along much later in the scene. What are those 'reasonable grounds'?

Well, the one that's normally brought up is deinococcus radiodurans. It is understood that it evolved within the cooling systems of nuclear reactors from other bacteria. (Anecdotal only) Halobacteria require light as an energy source for producing ATP. They are usually found in salt lakes and are quite primitive. They are archaeans - they have no nucleus or organelles, but if our first organism lived in the dark underground soup, then halobacteria are less likely candidates.


Quote:

[quote]Smaller and more primitive organisms are naturally suited to that kind of environment (hot soupy) anyway.

Other than the fact that it is what you are familiar with, what reason do you have for making the connection between the extreme environment and smaller organisms?[/quote]

Smaller simple organisms tend to survive heat (and radiation) better than larger organisms. The simpler they are, the less there is to go wrong.  (if you see what I'm driving at)

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120808.html

==>>>** Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee  :D :D
?? oi, why don't the image post?  :-? :-?

Probably too big.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 6:03pm:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120808.html ==>>>** Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee  :D :D ?? oi, why don't the image post?  :-? :-?

Because you posted the .html, not the .jpg


http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1208/ESP_028256_9022-1sc950.jpg

Surely if we believe that life evolved here on earth just
from the normal interaction of molecules in water then
it had enough time to evolve on Mars?

If so then we must be almost 100% certain that evidence of life will be found on Mars -
it's normal & natural for it to happen!

Bobby. wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

Surely if we believe that life evolved here on earth just from the normal interaction of molecules in water then it had enough time to evolve on Mars? If so then we must be almost 100% certain that evidence of life will be found on Mars - it's normal & natural for it to happen!

To come to that conclusion, you need to answer these questions:

Given the right conditions, what is the probability that life will come about spontaneously?

So if we had all the nutrients and raw materials, how likely is that life will come into being?

How many times has life actually started from scratch over the past say 4.5 billion years?

Are any of the life forms on Earth unrelated to all other forms of life?

What are the optimum initial conditions for life to initiate?

Did life originate on Earth in the first place? 

What is the mechanism for abiogenesis?

muso wrote on Sep 27^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 27th, 2013 at 12:53pm: Surely if we believe that life evolved here on earth just from the normal interaction of molecules in water then it had enough time to evolve on Mars? If so then we must be almost 100% certain that evidence of life will be found on Mars - it's normal & natural for it to happen! To come to that conclusion, you need to answer these questions: Given the right conditions, what is the probability that life will come about spontaneously? So if we had all the nutrients and raw materials, how likely is that life will come into being? How many times has life actually started from scratch over the past say 4.5 billion years? Are any of the life forms on Earth unrelated to all other forms of life? What are the optimum initial conditions for life to initiate? Did life originate on Earth in the first place?  What is the mechanism for abiogenesis?

I don't know the answer to any of those questions.

However:

Are any of the life forms on Earth unrelated to all other forms of life?

As far as I know all life has similar DNA on earth which
means a common ancestor of everything.
That is not a good sign of alternative life for Mars because
if life started there too then it would probably have different chemistry.
e.g.
Our DNA is made of -
adenine (A), , thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C).

Why wouldn't alternative DNA be based on say 10 different molecules?
We should be able to find life that wasn't based on ATGC on earth.

Well, the fact that all life is related, demonstrates that life started only once over a period of 4.5 billion years.

Given a number of  identical planets, how many of these will develop life, and how many will remain barren?

In how many of these planets has the spark of life been ignited, only to be snuffed out by a cataclysmic impact?

There are just too many unknowns.  I think your 100% certainty was based on a sample of one. The only life we know is the life that is endemic to this planet. 

muso wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 11:05am:

Well, the fact that all life is related, demonstrates that life started only once over a period of 4.5 billion years. Given a number of  identical planets, how many of these will develop life, and how many will remain barren? In how many of these planets has the spark of life been ignited, only to be snuffed out by a cataclysmic impact? There are just too many unknowns.  I think your 100% certainty was based on a sample of one. The only life we know is the life that is endemic to this planet.

But could there be some other life form on our
planet that doesn't use adenine (A), , thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C) ?

Maybe 10 different molecules making information that can reproduce?

I wonder why it's only 4 molecules that we have found so far?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28^th, 2013 at 11:15am:

muso wrote on Sep 28th, 2013 at 11:05am: Well, the fact that all life is related, demonstrates that life started only once over a period of 4.5 billion years. Given a number of  identical planets, how many of these will develop life, and how many will remain barren? In how many of these planets has the spark of life been ignited, only to be snuffed out by a cataclysmic impact? There are just too many unknowns.  I think your 100% certainty was based on a sample of one. The only life we know is the life that is endemic to this planet.  But could there be some other life form on our planet that doesn't use adenine (A), , thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C) ? Maybe 10 different molecules making information that can reproduce? I wonder why it's only 4 molecules that we have found so far?

Well, don't forget about urasil, which is the corresponding base for thymine in RNA.

This Wikipedia Article might interest you if you hadn't heard of it previously:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_life

Google "RNA based life forms" too.


You probably remember the arsenic containing bacterium that was subsequently found to prefer Phosphorus.

http://www.nature.com/news/arsenic-life-bacterium-prefers-phosphorus-after-all-1.11520

Hi Muso,
RNA is not different enough - from your link:


Quote:

RNA also uses a different set of bases than DNA—adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil, instead of adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine. Chemically, uracil is similar to thymine, differing only by a methyl group, and its production requires less energy.

The 2nd link is also using a form of DNA - I think?

None of these life forms are too removed from normal DNA
to be justified as completely different life forms with no link to us.

It's very interesting because if only a base 4 system of storing information can be found on earth
then it says we may never find alternative life elsewhere.

Why can't life exist in binary form - or base 2?
All our computers store information that way so it's still valid
& seems the most simple way to store information for life to reproduce.

I wasn't suggesting that RNA was in any way different. If anything, it could be a precursor for DNA.

Are you following Craig Venter's work on synthetic life?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23266-craig-venter-close-to-creating-synthetic-life.html#.UkdXqHgR-R0

muso wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 8:30am:

I wasn't suggesting that RNA was in any way different. If anything, it could be a precursor for DNA. Are you following Craig Venter's work on synthetic life? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23266-craig-venter-close-to-creating-synthetic-life.html#.UkdXqHgR-R0

No I haven't but that was an interesting article.

muso wrote on Sep 29^th, 2013 at 8:30am:

I wasn't suggesting that RNA was in any way different. If anything, it could be a precursor for DNA. Are you following Craig Venter's work on synthetic life? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23266-craig-venter-close-to-creating-synthetic-life.html#.UkdXqHgR-R0

eugenics has nothing to do with

water and life being present

throughout this solar system, and beyond

and so it is

namaste

- : )

http://www.theblessedbarrenness.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/facepalm.jpg

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977Metic..12..459H

Was there anything special about the early solar system that is different from later periods?

Aluminium 26 is one.

There has been a suggestion that Aluminium 26 in the nucleus of comets may have provided a warm moist  environment for simple life forms to eventuate. 

What would finding life on Mars mean?

Winston Smith wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 5:02am:

What would finding life on Mars mean?

That life exists not only on earth.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 9:48pm:

Winston Smith wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 5:02am: What would finding life on Mars mean? That life exists not only on earth.

There is one other scenario

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 11:21pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 9:48pm: Winston Smith wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 5:02am: What would finding life on Mars mean? That life exists not only on earth. There is one other scenario

Dear Chimp,
And what might be that?

Actually if life was discovered on Mars & it had a base 4 DNA like ours
it would prove that life on earth originated on Mars & came here via bacteria in asteroids.

LIGHT is the constant

omnipresent throughout within and without

the all that is transcending time space and stars

and all planets

http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2013/10/emp-attack-warning-professor-mccanney-on-the-john-moore-show-update-on-ison-now-past-mars-ison-went-green-omg-mars-itself-has-gone-comet-2467040.html

EMP Attack Warning Professor McCanney on The John Moore Show Update On Ison – Now Past Mars Ison Went Green – OMG Mars Itself has gone COMET!!!!!!!

Saturday, October 5, 2013 4:12

MONUMENTAL SOLAR SYSTEM CHANGES & FIRE IN THE SKY: “Planet Mars Gone Comet” – Professor James McCanney Declares That Mars Has Acquired A Coma From Its Electrical Interaction With Comet ISON, The Principal Reason For The Government Shutdown Of NASA? Great Listen on this clip below John interviewing Professor McCanney regarding Nasa shutting down.

http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2013/40/db6ba01700374a5ff85e63c67a76dc23cd1d7ba6.jpg

Comet ISON, photographed with a 3-inch (80mm) telescope this morning
Sept. 28 shows a circular green coma and head. A short dust tail
points to the northwest. Credit: Michael Jaeger
As NASA and the European Space Agency prepare  their remote photojournalists – Mars Express, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Curiosity and Opportunity rovers – to capture photos of Comet ISON’s flyby of Mars early next week, amateur astronomers continue to monitor and photograph the comet from backyard observatories across the blue Earth. Several recent color photos show ISON’s bright head or nucleus at the center of  a puffy, green coma. Green’s a good omen – a sign the comet’s getting more active as it enters the realm of the inner solar system and sun’s embrace.
The following report from Universe Today, confirms this:

http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2013/40/8826a37f78bd639c407336e448dcdbbef57b8cdf.jpg

Another great photo of the “greening” of Comet ISON taken on Sept. 24
with a 17-inch (43-cm) telescope. Click to enlarge. Credit: Damian Peach
Sunlight beating down on the comet’s nucleus (core) vaporizes dust-impregnated ice to form a cloud or coma, a temporary atmosphere of water vapor, dust, carbon dioxide, ammonia and other gases. Once liberated , the tenuous haze of comet stuff rapidly expands into a huge spherical cloud centered on the nucleus. – Universe Today.

On September 29, McCanney wrote on his website:

Comet ISON recently turned GREEN showing it is connecting electrically with Mars as I predicted. This started on the 24th of September. Standard science claims this is due to UV light from the Sun, which is more like fairy tale. They never explain such dichotomies (they do not have to since in the controlled press no one else gets to insert even a comment).  I predicted this brightening as the comet connects electrically with Mars, heading for a close bypass on the 1st of October

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/hs-media/comet_ison_blog_entry/featured_image/5249e54ac17e17c661000002/thumb_Panstarrs_900s_FB.jpg

Comet PanSTARRS in Ursa Minor. Credit: John Bozeman

The Comet PanSTARRS as seen from The Three Rivers Foundation Comanche Springs Astronomy Campus, Texas, on June 5, 2013. PanSTARRS, a comet from the Oort Cloud, became visible in March 2013.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra3dlFhdndw

Did Ison Cause Volcanic Eruptions on Mars?

namaste

- : )

Bobby. wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 10:22am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 11:21pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 9:48pm: Winston Smith wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 5:02am: What would finding life on Mars mean? That life exists not only on earth. There is one other scenario Dear Chimp, And what might be that? Actually if life was discovered on Mars & it had a base 4 DNA like ours it would prove that life on earth originated on Mars & came here via bacteria in asteroids.

that is indeed a feasible possibility Mr Batman...

your referral to panspermiatic origins is relevant to this debate

You should be very proud of your efforts and valuable contributions to this forums.

I will be formally making strong recommendations to the AUstralian of the Year, committee in Canberra  for the year 2021

Well done Mr Batman

Well done!

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:31pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 10:22am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 11:21pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 9:48pm: Winston Smith wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 5:02am: What would finding life on Mars mean? That life exists not only on earth. There is one other scenario Dear Chimp, And what might be that? Actually if life was discovered on Mars & it had a base 4 DNA like ours it would prove that life on earth originated on Mars & came here via bacteria in asteroids. that is indeed a feasible possibility Mr Batman... your referral to panspermiatic origins is relevant to this debate You should be very proud of your efforts and valuable contributions to this forums. I will be formally making strong recommendations to the AUstralian of the Year, committee in Canberra  for the year 2021 Well done Mr Batman Well done!

Thank you beloved Chimp,
however - panspermia is hardly my idea so I can't take credit for it.

Muso doesn't hold out much hope for such a theory as
he believes that conditions were better for life on earth than Mars in the distant past.
I doubt that & so it may be true that we are all descendants of Martians - even Chimps.

namaste

it_is_the_light wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

LIGHT is the constant omnipresent throughout within and without the all that is transcending time space and stars and all planets http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2013/10/emp-attack-warning-professor-mccanney-on-the-john-moore-show-update-on-ison-now-past-mars-ison-went-green-omg-mars-itself-has-gone-comet-2467040.html EMP Attack Warning Professor McCanney on The John Moore Show Update On Ison – Now Past Mars Ison Went Green – OMG Mars Itself has gone COMET!!!!!!! Saturday, October 5, 2013 4:12 MONUMENTAL SOLAR SYSTEM CHANGES & FIRE IN THE SKY: “Planet Mars Gone Comet” – Professor James McCanney Declares That Mars Has Acquired A Coma From Its Electrical Interaction With Comet ISON, The Principal Reason For The Government Shutdown Of NASA? Great Listen on this clip below John interviewing Professor McCanney regarding Nasa shutting down. http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2013/40/db6ba01700374a5ff85e63c67a76dc23cd1d7ba6.jpg Comet ISON, photographed with a 3-inch (80mm) telescope this morning Sept. 28 shows a circular green coma and head. A short dust tail points to the northwest. Credit: Michael Jaeger As NASA and the European Space Agency prepare  their remote photojournalists – Mars Express, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Curiosity and Opportunity rovers – to capture photos of Comet ISON’s flyby of Mars early next week, amateur astronomers continue to monitor and photograph the comet from backyard observatories across the blue Earth. Several recent color photos show ISON’s bright head or nucleus at the center of  a puffy, green coma. Green’s a good omen – a sign the comet’s getting more active as it enters the realm of the inner solar system and sun’s embrace. The following report from Universe Today, confirms this: http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2013/40/8826a37f78bd639c407336e448dcdbbef57b8cdf.jpg Another great photo of the “greening” of Comet ISON taken on Sept. 24 with a 17-inch (43-cm) telescope. Click to enlarge. Credit: Damian Peach Sunlight beating down on the comet’s nucleus (core) vaporizes dust-impregnated ice to form a cloud or coma, a temporary atmosphere of water vapor, dust, carbon dioxide, ammonia and other gases. Once liberated , the tenuous haze of comet stuff rapidly expands into a huge spherical cloud centered on the nucleus. – Universe Today. On September 29, McCanney wrote on his website: Comet ISON recently turned GREEN showing it is connecting electrically with Mars as I predicted. This started on the 24th of September. Standard science claims this is due to UV light from the Sun, which is more like fairy tale. They never explain such dichotomies (they do not have to since in the controlled press no one else gets to insert even a comment).  I predicted this brightening as the comet connects electrically with Mars, heading for a close bypass on the 1st of October http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/hs-media/comet_ison_blog_entry/featured_image/5249e54ac17e17c661000002/thumb_Panstarrs_900s_FB.jpg Comet PanSTARRS in Ursa Minor. Credit: John Bozeman The Comet PanSTARRS as seen from The Three Rivers Foundation Comanche Springs Astronomy Campus, Texas, on June 5, 2013. PanSTARRS, a comet from the Oort Cloud, became visible in March 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra3dlFhdndw Did Ison Cause Volcanic Eruptions on Mars? namaste - : )

master Light,
Thanks for your insights.
It will take me some time before I can respond.
It's information overload.

namaste

it_is_the_light wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

LIGHT is the constant omnipresent throughout within and without the all that is transcending time space and stars and all planets

Plenty of light on Mercury. Ever been there?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:31pm:

that is indeed a feasible possibility Mr Batman... your referral to panspermiatic origins is relevant to this debate You should be very proud of your efforts and valuable contributions to this forums. I will be formally making strong recommendations to the AUstralian of the Year, committee in Canberra  for the year 2021 Well done Mr Batman Well done!

Well there would be a number of possibilities if life was to be found on Mars.  Even if it were to be 4 base DNA based life found on Mars, then it would imply either a common origin or a common mechanism.

Do you ever wonder about stereochemistry, and why certain substances favour one enantiomer predominantly over another?  For example why d-glucose (dextrose)  and not l- glucose.

What mechanism caused the "right hand" version of the molecule to dominate? 

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/MBWeb/mb1/part2/images/glucos.gif

Some proposed reasons may surprise you.

muso wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:31pm: that is indeed a feasible possibility Mr Batman... your referral to panspermiatic origins is relevant to this debate You should be very proud of your efforts and valuable contributions to this forums. I will be formally making strong recommendations to the AUstralian of the Year, committee in Canberra  for the year 2021 Well done Mr Batman Well done! Well there would be a number of possibilities if life was to be found on Mars.  Even if it were to be 4 base DNA based life found on Mars, then it would imply either a common origin or a common mechanism. Do you ever wonder about stereochemistry, and why certain substances favour one enantiomer predominantly over another?  For example why d-glucose (dextrose)  and not l- glucose. What mechanism caused the "right hand" version of the molecule to dominate?  http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/MBWeb/mb1/part2/images/glucos.gif Some proposed reasons may surprise you.

Hi Muso,
No - can't give you any reasons but I follow the implied meaning:
The base 4 DNA may be the only method by which life could form.
If that is the case then life found anywhere would be the same.
Something to ponder.

muso wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:31pm: that is indeed a feasible possibility Mr Batman... your referral to panspermiatic origins is relevant to this debate You should be very proud of your efforts and valuable contributions to this forums. I will be formally making strong recommendations to the AUstralian of the Year, committee in Canberra  for the year 2021 Well done Mr Batman Well done! Well there would be a number of possibilities if life was to be found on Mars.  Even if it were to be 4 base DNA based life found on Mars, then it would imply either a common origin or a common mechanism. Do you ever wonder about stereochemistry, and why certain substances favour one enantiomer predominantly over another?  For example why d-glucose (dextrose)  and not l- glucose. What mechanism caused the "right hand" version of the molecule to dominate?  http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/MBWeb/mb1/part2/images/glucos.gif Some proposed reasons may surprise you.

that is indeed a feasible possibility Mr muso...

your referral to alternative origins is relevant to this debate

You should be very proud of your efforts and valuable contributions to this forum.

I will be formally making strong recommendations to the Australian of the Year, committee in Canberra  for the year 2021

Well done muso

Well done!

Ooops!  I should have looked first!  I started a thread on mars today.  :(

we have contact..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6WDa8uBi9U

Ace Satellite Picking Up Modulated Signal.

prepare

namaste

- : )

That's not a very convincing video master Light.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:37pm:

That's not a very convincing video master Light.

...step 1 has been completed. Although you cannot snatch the pebble from his hand yet, you are on the right path.

Keep up the good work, we are all right behind you.

You can do it.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:37pm:

That's not a very convincing video master Light.

lighted one

take the pebble from my hand

namaste

- : )

it_is_the_light wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 10:45am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 8:37pm: That's not a very convincing video master Light. lighted one take the pebble from my hand namaste - : )

Dear master Light,
do not be put off by all the doubting Thomas's.
Continue to post links without permission from simian types or anyone else.

namaste

and so it is as we continue

within divine light

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juZ0fxzBGFM

coincidence the US govt is in shutdown ?

many agencies monitoring these prophetic changes

are not delivering much information

some not at all yet all is well enough

and here..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XadqnsNFjoo

The Electric Universe—Predictions and Surprises

be at peace

namaste

- : )

it_is_the_light wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 11:44am:

and so it is as we continue within divine light http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juZ0fxzBGFM coincidence the US govt is in shutdown ? many agencies monitoring these prophetic changes are not delivering much information some not at all yet all is well enough and here.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XadqnsNFjoo The Electric Universe—Predictions and Surprises be at peace namaste - : )

its a distraction Mr Photon

Remember the US state is financially In receivership. Its main function is to keep the insane corporate scam on welfare.

It needs to raise the debt ceiling again - TWICE by the same administration - never happened before in US history.

They went into an apparent POLITICAL shutdown because they cant tell the American People the Truth.

http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2013/10/mars-zapped-by-ison-interacts-with-comet-see-the-interaction-2454376.html

Mars Zapped By ISON — Interacts With Comet — See The Interaction

Tuesday, October 8, 2013 18:29

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6hIszCmXyk

Published on Oct 8, 2013

MARS has a hissy from Comet Ison pass, captured on film; a short film showing Comet Ison October 2013 as it passes MARS.

This puts a whole new potential to this Comet Ison, as its trajectory is still uncertain and its closeness is still uncertain. If it made Mars get the hump, then what is in store for the future? Lets watch and hope for the bes! Maybe it will just fizzle out? Let’s hope so! As usual we are monitoring, and the Alien TV crew will also be on the case.

Should we be at all concerned? Or, is this Comet ISON business just to instill panic?

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/238056/images/mars-comet-NASA.jpg

http://outofthisworldx.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/comet-elenin-coming-pass-earth-2011.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NawS5wZCBQQ/UiUWBSCauHI/AAAAAAAAAms/7ifHdTRA5T0/s1600/ison+dates.jpg

namaste

- : )

Just wait for Comet Siding Springs 2012. That might just crash into Mars next year.

ISON might be very spectacular next month. They now think that it will survive the close encounter with the sun.

blessings,

many can wait till 2014

others choose to ground awareness in this now moment

either way be at peace as comet 2012 - ison

changes colour to divine green

and its intensifying as shown here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTZyLYWi4LI

Comet Impacts The Sun!

namaste

ॐ