Strongest evidence yet to there being life on Mars

reply to post by bknapple32


Probably depends on the religion too. I am sure zen budhists would care not

reply to post by TKDRL


Im agnostic, most closely relate to Hindu ( i have a dharmachakra wheel tattoo on my left forearm) I would welcome it with open arms lol. As long as no harm comes!

reply to post by TKDRL

What is the significance? If there is actual life found on mars, what does it matter in the grand scheme of our lives here on earth?

I think the sphere of human awareness would expand to include Mars as another source of Life. Right now, we're quite possibly the only life-form in the universe.

Life on Mars would potentially make life a given where environmental conditions are suitable. Titan, Europa, Mars and Earth are the most suitable according to what little we know...so we'd have a 50% presence of Life in predicted places.

Abiogenesis would raise its enigmatic head once again as would whatever panspermia is currently being called. Religions are as adaptable as the flu virus and would just carry on. It's the application of science where we'd begin to see the greatest, most profound changes. Imagine if double-helix DNA was a convergent evolutionary feature of Life? That alone would be as intriguing as wilder examples.

I guess everyone's mileage varies with these possibilities and many people just don't care. Some can't afford to care so I'm not criticising their priorities!

reply to post by Kandinsky

I voted for Obama, and one of the things I haven't been able to defend and hate is his dismantling of nasa. We're the united states, how are we not in space pushing the boundaries every day? ?

reply to post by TKDRL


Explanation: St*rred!

This simple .. it would bring an immediate end to ever going back to mars!

It would instantly kill any ideas of colonization!

It would make mars an off limits reserve for any reasons including science.

It would mean that we would have probably infected the life on mars with crap from earth. [note I am not saying seeded life on mars from earth .. i am say infected the life on mars ..with life from earth]

Personal Disclosure: So yay life elsewhere ... but we now can't go investigate that directly at all on mars as it would be morally reprehensible to interefer with life there.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

I voted for Obama, and one of the things I haven't been able to defend and hate is his dismantling of nasa. We're the united states, how are we not in space pushing the boundaries every day? ?

Because NASA has international ties and shares information (at times technology) with "competing" nations. If the U.S. is to maintain Space superiority militarily, then it would be counter-productive to help other nations to achieve a greater presence there. Plus, the space program costs loads of money that the nation just does not currently have to spend. Achievements for the pure sake of curiosity will have to wait, for now.

reply to post by bknapple32
Maybe the laws of diminishing returns?

We're learning so much from missions like Kepler that spending more on actual exploration could be seen as a bad business decision. The political capital of an active space mission used to be worth something and I wonder if it isn't any more?

'National Projects' have been tried and tested ways of focusing the attention of unhappy populations for centuries. We could do with something similar and yet, as much as I love the idea of space exploration, even I wonder if it would be money well-spent...times are hard.

Originally posted by bknapple32

Strongest evidence yet to there being life on Mars'

www.telegraph.co.uk

Martian rocks from a crater hit by a meteorite may contain the strongest evidence yet that there is life on Mars.Prof John Parnell, 55, has co-written a theory with Dr Joseph Michalski, a planetary geologist at the Natural History Museum, that suggests they have discovered the best signs of life in the huge McLaughlin Crater on the surface of Mars.The document, published today in Nature Geoscience journal, describes how they assessed the crater, created by a meteorite which smashed into the surf

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 20-1-2013 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)

While I know you are probably providing the title word for word, it's a little misleading when it actually says 'may contain the strongest evidence', and it is also based around a theory. There is no actual evidence per se, is there?

I suppose you do realise if we find microbial life on Mars that means the end of any further exploration of its surface?

We would not be able to justify the possibility of contaminating Mars with our bugs or risk bringing any microbes from Mars back to Earth.

Finding life everywhere may mean we cannot go anywhere

reply to post by bknapple32


The Martians came to Earth when their planet went bad. They tried to go underground, but the giant dogs that live there forced them out.

A couple of them are my cousins.

Prove me wrong.

//There is life in the Universe that is far more advanced than us - that is just a statistical probability.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by bknapple32

 

Maybe the laws of diminishing returns?

We're learning so much from missions like Kepler that spending more on actual exploration could be seen as a bad business decision. The political capital of an active space mission used to be worth something and I wonder if it isn't any more?

'National Projects' have been tried and tested ways of focusing the attention of unhappy populations for centuries. We could do with something similar and yet, as much as I love the idea of space exploration, even I wonder if it would be money well-spent...times are hard.

I refer you to my signature.

Originally posted by colin42
I suppose you do realise if we find microbial life on Mars that means the end of any further exploration of its surface?

We would not be able to justify the possibility of contaminating Mars with our bugs or risk bringing any microbes from Mars back to Earth.

Finding life everywhere may mean we cannot go anywhere

It would already be contaminated by what has already been sent there.

Anything brought back would have to follow strict protocols to keep the risk of contamination (either way) down.

It could even been kept off our planet say on board the ISS.

Well what irks me about this is... this is not news. There have been COUNTLESS articles about water on Mars since 2000. Why does this keep getting reported on?!? Something's so fishy about it. Like it's such a big reality check that TPB is just letting it sink in over time... collection of links from 2000 to today

Originally posted by TKDRL
What is the significance? If there is actual life found on mars, what does it matter in the grand scheme of our lives here on earth?

not sure why everyone always argues religion on this one. pretty sure modern religionists are robust enough to accomodate things that make extraterrestrial life look trivial. to me it all comes down to one crux and all it entails...

it means we don't necessarily have to stay here.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by bknapple32

 

Not necessarily. I never heard god proclaim in the bible that we were the first life he created, or even the only life

Of course someone might verywell put up some scripture and have me eating my words

According to the Bible, he created angels as well. But in the physical universe, it only mentions us. Not necessarily saying he only created us(in the physical universe)(according to the Bible), but it certainly has been interpreted that way.

Originally posted by SoulVisions
The thread title threw me off a bit. It says "best evidence," but the quoted text reads "theory." =(

I'm with you on this . The OP should have used a "?" at the end of the title and that would instantly end any confusion . As it is , the title is misleading .

"Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons" have been found in meteor remnants on Earth. How do we know something from the meteor didn't contaminate the Martian soil? We are missing a link here apparently.

Well considering we have Earth bacteria and microbes, all over and within our bodies...where ever man travels in space, he takes other Earth life with him. Tho im not sure if the Radiation of space would effect our microbes, but put it this way, arent we told we need the "Good" bacteria in our stomachs to help digest food. Well we are just a hairy mammal, covered with parasites, just like any other mammal on the Planet.
Astronauts still have to poop and pee, all full of waste and organisms. Perhaps they will dig a hole on Mars to bury their poop...tho I doubt it. Who knows what could happen to it on Mars....

What are we going to do if we find out that the Universe is in fact abundant, and that life is an abberation? Does that change anything for us here? What if we find out, as far as the Universe goes, we're just standing out on the
porch of an old, huge, rambling house, and there is NOBODY else home? How does that change things? What if we turn around and look, and there's no other houses even on the street? We need to get into space, permanently, and get cracking! It would be great to get a text from my grandson or grand daughter saying 'Hey, granpa, we're four days away from Barnards Star, and they view is AWESOME. See ya when I get home.' Thats waht we should be doing, right NOW !

Nope. No evidence yet. The article is about how evidence could be found. And Curiosity ain't it.

Odd though, the Telegraph places their headline in quotes. Isn't that supposed to mean it's a direct quote? Why don't they show that direct quote in context?

I really hate how the popular press distorts science.