A synopsis is that methane has been detected emerging from the ground during warm martian seasons. This means that at the very least there is active underground chemistry. From what I've heard elsewhere this finding also means there's underground water (maybe not in pools, but it's there). The possible, and not very likely, source of this water is martian microorganisms. If this is truly the source of the methane... holy crap.
Anyway. http://likearadiotelescope.wordpress.com/ is a blog(or wanna-be blog) of a science writer and she says she hasn't seen so much news about a single thing for a while, so I thought I'd pass it on.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Thanks for posting this! I thought about posting it but I wasn't sure how much interest there would be. I think it's very exciting. I feel positive that life pervades the universe, given the rapidity with which it got established on the earth almost as soon as conditions were favorable.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
and tot hink instead of wasting billions in iraq for a measely 20-30 billion we could already have a scientific base on mars.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I think it's very likely there is a lot of life in the universe, because hey, the universe is a very large place, and life doesn't seem THAT tough to get started.
It is important to remain skeptical here, though. To not deceive ourselves into saying "We've found life" when we've done nothing of the sort.
It is also important to think about what implications finding life on mars would mean, for biology, for chemistry, for the drake equation(which attempts to predict the number of technological civilizations in the universe)(or some similar figure about life).
And yes, Blayne, it staggers the mind to think what could be done with an increase in funding for NASA and the like.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
I agree with Starnuffer, very well said.
I don't blame NASA for putting the emphasis on the possiblity of life, because that romantic notion gets more press and in the end more support from the general population.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: I think it's very likely there is a lot of life in the universe, because hey, the universe is a very large place, and life doesn't seem THAT tough to get started.
The detection of any form of life (past and present) on Mars would have a positively huge impact on the philosophical roots of SETI and exobiology, at the very least.
If you are familiar with the Drake Equation, you'll see that the inclusion of two examples of possibly independent evolution would increase the perceived likelihood of abundant alien life exponentially. As it is, many SETI researchers believe firmly that the likelihood of extra terrestrial contact, let alone the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence is almost certain.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Methane is not only produced by microorganisms. Much of it is likely primordial--it was part of the components of which the earth was originally formed. The outer gas giants in our solar system have as much as 1.6% methane in their huge atmospheres. The atmosphere of Uranus is said to be 2.3% methane. Also the larger moons, like Titan, have methane in their atmospheres, or as a major part of their surface "ice."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think I would beat the 'life' drum so loud quite yet; sure, it gets the big headlines, but then again so does "Not life after all" if it doesn't pan out. I also feel fairly convinced that a number of chemists and whatnot will come out of the woodwork with novel methane-producing reactions using conditions known to exist on Mars.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:many SETI researchers believe firmly that the likelihood of extra terrestrial contact, let alone the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence is almost certain.
Yes, but now you're really doing what global-warming skeptics keep accusing people of doing: You are doing appeal to authority when the authority has no actual evidence. The SETI researchers don't know any more about the probability per unit time of life forming than you do; they just feed a 'reasonable' number into the Drake equation and see "lots of civilisations" popping out. What does 'reasonable' mean? Anything you like!
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ]
If you are familiar with the Drake Equation, you'll see that the inclusion of two examples of possibly independent evolution would increase the perceived likelihood of abundant alien life exponentially. As it is, many SETI researchers believe firmly that the likelihood of extra terrestrial contact, let alone the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence is almost certain. [/QB]
I am familiar with this view of the drake equation
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:many SETI researchers believe firmly that the likelihood of extra terrestrial contact, let alone the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence is almost certain.
Yes, but now you're really doing what global-warming skeptics keep accusing people of doing: You are doing appeal to authority when the authority has no actual evidence. The SETI researchers don't know any more about the probability per unit time of life forming than you do; they just feed a 'reasonable' number into the Drake equation and see "lots of civilisations" popping out. What does 'reasonable' mean? Anything you like!
I wasn't particularly trying to appeal to authority here, which is why I phrased it in that way, as opposed to "Seti researchers think" or "SETI researchers agree." I meant "believe" to carry the color that you already have asigned to it, and I agree with you.
Besides, talking about global warming and talking about Drake is comparing apples and oranges. Virtually all that exists in Drake is acknowledged to be assumption and speculation- not a claim that advocates of a global warming theory are likely to acknowledge in their cause. And anyway, Drake doesn't have a cause- it doesn't tell us anything about what we should do; it's just a framework for developing assumptions and theories about why the universe appears to us as it does, and why certain things have not happened, and what that means about our assumptions. It's a fairly neutral thing in terms of ideology, at least from where I sit.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fair enough; I took your post for a somewhat stronger statement of belief than you intended it as. I do think that the existence of alien civilisations is fairly comparable to global warming in that they are both claims of fact. It's true that one has policy implications and the other doesn't, but then again we have very little data on the aliens and quite a bit on global warming; it probably cancels out. Moreover, I think Ron and perhaps Lisa both have theological reasons to object to the existence of aliens.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
No, I have theological reasons to believe in aliens. The Bible talks about angels, who existed before humans were created. They are aliens--both the fallen angels who were cast out to earth to live among us as devils, and the still faithful angels of God who are sent here to earth to protect us from the devils, and encourage us to make the right choices. There is a passage in Job where God says that when God laid the foundations of the earth, "The morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." (Job 38:4, 7) The figure of stars is often used as a poetic or prophetic symbol for angels, while sons of God would most likely refer to other Adams on other worlds (Adam was called a son of God, but he was not there yet when the foundations of the earth were being laid).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Angels, fine, but methane-producing bacteria on Mars?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ild argue that if God has so much love then why not spread his love among all the stars and cosmos?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm sure you would, but then again you're not a creationist.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm a naturist. In the sense that evolution is natural and likely if not almsot certain probalistically speaking of intelligent life to be across the cosmos.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
quote:KoM: I also feel fairly convinced that a number of chemists and whatnot will come out of the woodwork with novel methane-producing reactions using conditions known to exist on Mars.
Yeah, this is what I assume will happen.
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=453 There's a brief and, in my opinion, good, mentioning of SETI and why that writer at least feels the premise of SETI is valid(or at least that their methodology is scientific). Anyway, I would be astonished if there was no life anywhere else at all. not anywhere. I would be very disappointed, very skeptical, and very inspired(hey, if we're really all there is we have to do well(writing that i realize it really makes no sense. The absence of other life would mean we can be as crappy as we like and still be "the best" ))
So yeah. It's interesting news in any case, if only because it tells us more about the presence of water on Mars
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm a proponent of the theory of panspermia, the supposition that life pervades the universe as photosynthetic bacteria that can survive a supernova and live in dormant form in interstellar clouds. It takes just one such bacterium to fall gently onto a likely planet for life to begin there.
The reason I think this is probably true is that life on earth, the extremely hard part of getting some replicating molecule to form from a nonliving organic soup, happened almost as soon as it possibly could in the history of the planet. It took only a hundred million years after earth cooled for the first colonies of photosynthetic bacteria to appear. The seemingly easier part of making anything else, any predators of the bacteria, or any multicelled creatures, took a billion more years.
Those figures should be reversed, I think. In other words, it should have taken at least ten times as long for step 1 to occur than step 2. Because step 1 happened so quickly, I'm thinking it had some help. And because all it would take is for life to form somewhere in the vast galaxy (there are about 200 billion stars in our galaxy, most of which probably have planets, giving a lot more chances for step 1 to happen), and for some bacteria to survive in dormant form in interstellar space (which seems not so unlikely given the range of earth habitats in which we find them), then it seems like a no-brainer.
That's why I expect we'll find life everywhere it can be, life that's related to us, even, and has a clearly similar genetic code (as bacteria do), though not identical, for sure. Also, the creatures who result are most likely no more like us than the Burgess Shale would indicate, meaning they're likely to look bizarre to our eyes, with possibly nothing like arms and legs and a head. The aliens of popular alien fiction are far too close to human to be realistic, of course.
One more thing is, I don't think human-like intelligence is anything like the inevitable end of the ladder of evolution. Evolution is a bush, not a ladder, and we're far from the most important branch. We're quite an afterthought, as a matter of fact, and haven't yet demonstrated that we have much survival power (as a species). We're upstarts from just a few million years ago, and quite likely to be a flash-in-the-pan phenomenon in earth's history, unless we really do grow up and start acting sensibly. So don't expect anyone to say "take me to your leader".
But Methane on Mars is definitely quite intriguing and deserves to make headlines.
[ February 03, 2009, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I once wrote a story in which a man makes a presentation to the Security Council about the discovery of there being NO life in the universe aside from us here on Earth.
I think there being no other life anywhere in the universe would actually be more shocking, in the long run.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: ...Methane on Mars is definitely quite intriguing and deserves to make headlines.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)