Poll

What would you conclude if it was determined that life is found on Mars?

Ancient life on Earth once visited Mars
4 (7.4%)
Ancient life on Earth colonized Mars then returned to Earth
1 (1.9%)
Life on Earth existed first, but was invaded by life on Mars
1 (1.9%)
Life on Earth invaded Mars, but destroyed all life on Mars long ago
0 (0%)
Life originated somewhere else (e.g. Phaeton), but colonized Mars and Earth.  But Mars life was destroyed.
4 (7.4%)
Life originated from Mars.
9 (16.7%)
Something else.
35 (64.8%)

Total Members Voted: 54


Author Topic: Life on Mars  (Read 13437 times)

Offline Mr. Scott

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 894
Life on Mars
« on: 06/12/2020 08:03 pm »
« Last Edit: 04/02/2023 07:33 am by Mr. Scott »

Offline Twark_Main

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3618
  • Technically we ALL live in space
  • Liked: 1878
  • Likes Given: 1187
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #1 on: 06/12/2020 11:20 pm »
Where is the "there's not enough information to conclude any of the above conclusions" option?

"The search for a universal design which suits all sites, people, and situations is obviously impossible. What is possible is well designed examples of the application of universal principles." ~~ David Holmgren

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Liked: 1053
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #2 on: 06/13/2020 01:21 pm »
Where is the "there's not enough information to conclude any of the above conclusions" option?
Sure.  That would be “something else”. And you hit it just right. 

So essentially you are saying that there would not be enough information to conclude anything.  But then hypothetically, it isn’t clear why the President would have announced anything because then nothing could have been concluded or recommended to have been done in response.  So nothing else happens or should happen unless fully vetted and agreed to proof is provided, along with the approved conclusions that you are required to comply with.  I can see how that may be an option). The

How much proof/information do you require to make a mere conclusion?
(Emphasis mine) Because political gains trump scientific rigour. And "a mere conclusion"?! I take it you're not a scientist? A conclusion is probably the most important thing. It needs to be correctly phrased to be supported by the most reasonable interpretation of the available evidence. It's never a "mere conclusion" (if you're doing your job right).

In response to your question, the actual scientific conclusion would depend on the actual evidence. To be able to give any sort of real verdict on the relation to earth life, you need some sequence-able genetic material. If you don't have that (and you probably won't), good luck.

If you do, and if the generic material is radically different from what we're used to, the chance of it being related is slim (barring it being related to something extinct here now that we don't know of).

If there are recognisably related sequences (and this is a statistical question), then the best we could do would be to determine when the last likely common ancestor was through molecular clock type analysis. This will tell you when the Martian sequence and the corresponding Earth sequence likely diverged. Note that this doesn't tell where that common ancestor was, just when. And that's assuming the rate of mutation was comparable on both planets, which it almost certainly wouldn't be.

So no, it will be very unlikely that we would be able to draw any of the conclusions you suggested. (In my opinion, of course)

Offline Slarty1080

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2740
  • UK
  • Liked: 1871
  • Likes Given: 814
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #3 on: 06/13/2020 10:38 pm »
It really depends on what is found. We have already had  trace findings from a single data point (meteorite) and presidential pronouncements and subsequent arguments. So it would need to be something more substantial to really be accepted. If an astronaut hit a rock with a hammer and found a recognisable fossil form then I would say it's fairly conclusive. If its very small there will probably be further arguments as there were with the meteorite .

Unless they find something actually alive or something that died in the geologically recent past it's unlikely that they will be able to address any of the detailed questions that you mention. But if they do, then DNA analysis would probably provide some answers. If the genetic code is the same then they almost certainly have a common origin (single biogenisis) if not or they're not DNA based, then no common origin (separate biogenisis events).
My optimistic hope is that it will become cool to really think about things... rather than just doing reactive bullsh*t based on no knowledge (Brian Cox)

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #4 on: 06/14/2020 10:25 am »
*Viking fiasco, cough, cough*

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45991.0

Don't forget, Viking puzzling, half-baked, and thoroughly uncomprehensible results (at the time, and even for the scientists behind the experiments ! ) screwed robotic landers for two decades, until 1997 Pathfinder.

Don't forget, even with everybody else (Oyama, Horowitz, Biemann) dead and half a dozen landers since Viking, plus that perchlorate discovery 12 years ago - Gilbert Levin still claim his experiment has find life 45 years ago.  :o
Not that I have an axe to grin against Levin:the entire controversy and the lessons to be learned from it,  go far beyond him.
Overall, 45 years later the mystery of Viking experiments still has not been entirely solved, or solved in a satisfying way.

The obvious conclusion: BE CAUTIOUS.

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357

Offline Twark_Main

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3618
  • Technically we ALL live in space
  • Liked: 1878
  • Likes Given: 1187
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #6 on: 06/15/2020 11:09 pm »
No I am not a scientist. Not everyone on Earth is a scientist.  Not everyone should be a scientist.

But I am trying to figure out how much information may be needed in order to generate a conclusion.  For me, I was able to draw a conclusion off of one data point.  But maybe others would not.

I have seen scientists make conclusions without any data.

That's called "jumping to conclusions," and it's not really something to be proud of.

Scientists think in the way nature forces you to think: carefully, and with a keen grasp of the limits of your own knowledge. If they're truly making "conclusions without any data," they may be scientists but they're not using scientific thinking.

But wondering how much information is needed in this regard to make a conclusion.

You need enough information to statistically rule out competing hypotheses.

With the scientific method, the collection of data is performed so that a hypothesis can be confirmed.  If true then conclusions based on the originating hypothesis may be generated. Data collection for the sake data collection is a boondoggle.

Actually this is the subject of a lively debate within the scientific community. Essentially you're describing the difference between hypothesis-driven science and data-driven science. Both can be valuable tools for discovery.

https://tarikyildirim.com/blog/2019/12/16/hypothesis-vs-data-driven-science

So if one were to search for DNA with Mars samples, that conveys that the originating hypothesis assumes previous ancient life on Earth could be found on Mars.  The goal would be to conclude that Earth already visited Mars.  Or that life on Earth and Mars have some common characteristics that are both composed by DNA.  A very grand assumption and hypothesis.

I think you're overthinking it ("but what is the scientist really thinking??"). The goal would be conclude... whether the sample contains DNA. :P

You might formulate some additional hypotheses next ("this life came from Earth," etc), but they're not conclusions until after they're tested and hold up.
"The search for a universal design which suits all sites, people, and situations is obviously impossible. What is possible is well designed examples of the application of universal principles." ~~ David Holmgren

Offline Twark_Main

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3618
  • Technically we ALL live in space
  • Liked: 1878
  • Likes Given: 1187
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #7 on: 06/15/2020 11:20 pm »
So essentially you are saying that there would not be enough information to conclude anything.

No, they would conclude "we found life on Mars." That's a pretty big conclusion!

They just couldn't conclude its origins without actual evidence of its origins.

But then hypothetically, it isn’t clear why the President would have announced anything because then nothing could have been concluded or recommended to have been done in response.

Firstly, that's not necessarily the President's job.

But more importantly, why wouldn't the discovery of life on Mars be worth announcing? Because we still have unanswered questions? But we'll always have unanswered questions! So should we just never announce any new discovery? :-\


So nothing else happens or should happen unless fully vetted and agreed to proof is provided, along with the approved conclusions that you are required to comply with.  I can see how that may be an option.

Yes, science deals in actual evidence (what you call "proof"). But you're not "required to comply" with the conclusion. In fact, in science you're mostly trying to disprove the accepted hypothesis.

How much proof/information do you require to make a mere conclusion?

This simple question opens the door to a whole branch of mathematics, not to mention philosophy of science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
« Last Edit: 06/15/2020 11:25 pm by Twark_Main »
"The search for a universal design which suits all sites, people, and situations is obviously impossible. What is possible is well designed examples of the application of universal principles." ~~ David Holmgren

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Liked: 1053
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #8 on: 06/16/2020 09:08 am »
That's called "jumping to conclusions," and it's not really something to be proud of.

Scientists think in the way nature forces you to think: carefully, and with a keen grasp of the limits of your own knowledge. If they're truly making "conclusions without any data," they may be scientists but they're not using scientific thinking.
Amen!

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
  • Liked: 1053
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #9 on: 06/16/2020 10:00 pm »
This quote from a link above was enlightening:

Quote
Governments do not give money to scientists so that they can tinker around and do whatever they want. So a scientist applying for a grant needs to know what he is doing. This forces everyone to be in a hypothesis-driven mode from the beginning and thereby leads to less transformative ideas in the long run. (Hat tip to Mehmet Toner for this point.)

I think I’m stuck with my thinking and trying to resolve differences between actual conclusions and hypothetical conclusions.
(Emphasis mine). No such thing. That's just a hypothesis.

Quote
I guess if I jump to a conclusion that life doesn’t exist, then I can colonize Mars in an unlimited way.  But then if I can’t jump to that conclusion and have to assume life existed, I have to practice unlimited caution to the point that one cannot do colonization. 
It is literally impossible to prove no life exists on Mars without literally turning over every rock and checking it etc. All you can say is that it is very unlikely there is life there. It is then a judgement call on the remaining level of planetary protection required.

Quote
So what does the scientific process do when other scientists have already jumped to a conclusion?
You grumble about them to your colleagues, you argue with them at conferences, you send in dissenting comments on their published work, you poorly review grants based on that conclusion, etc etc. There are no rules. It's an organic process.

Offline Twark_Main

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3618
  • Technically we ALL live in space
  • Liked: 1878
  • Likes Given: 1187
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #10 on: 06/16/2020 10:07 pm »
Thanks for your continued dialog, and your patience with my often bumbled explanations. ;) If I leave anything unclear, please don't hesitate to ask.

I guess if I jump to a conclusion that life doesn’t exist, then I can colonize Mars in an unlimited way.  But then if I can’t jump to that conclusion and have to assume life existed, I have to practice unlimited caution to the point that one cannot do colonization.

What's the rush? You can't make any valid conclusions before you gather the evidence.

For major discoveries, it will often be years or even decades between when a question is first asked and when it is finally answered. Scientists learn to be comfortable with this uncertainty, even as they chip away at it. Often all a good scientist can say is, "we don't know."

But more fundamentally, whether or not humans should colonize Mars if we find bacteria isn't really a scientific question, for scientists to referee. It's an ethical question, for society as a whole to answer.

« Last Edit: 06/16/2020 10:15 pm by Twark_Main »
"The search for a universal design which suits all sites, people, and situations is obviously impossible. What is possible is well designed examples of the application of universal principles." ~~ David Holmgren

Offline Twark_Main

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3618
  • Technically we ALL live in space
  • Liked: 1878
  • Likes Given: 1187
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #11 on: 06/17/2020 09:48 pm »
There won’t be any ability to make genuine conclusions later after all hope of collecting usable data is actively/thoroughly destroyed at a local level.  So given some plans, if one does not rapidly gather evidence now, it won’t happen later (circa 2033+).

You might check out Dr. Robert Zubrin's response to this argument on a recent episode of The Space Show.

https://thespaceshow.com/show/11-feb-2020/broadcast-3459-dr.-robert-zubrin (the comments start at 29:20)

Paraphrasing, he argues that we can still distinguish Earth contamination from native Mars life. If the life discovered is very different from Earth life, then it's obvious that it's not from Earth. If it's similar to Earth life, we can still tell whether it originated on Mars by looking at fossils and biomarkers.

Also, all missions (including SpaceX) plan to initially avoid areas where life is considered especially probable, to minimize sample contamination risk. So it's not like we'll "actively/thoroughly destroy" the entire planet surface by 2033. Mars is big.

Obviously planetary protection is a very contentious issue. I don't know if I entirely agree with Dr. Zubrin, but he makes an interesting case.

There's also a thread on planetary protection here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47049
« Last Edit: 06/17/2020 09:51 pm by Twark_Main »
"The search for a universal design which suits all sites, people, and situations is obviously impossible. What is possible is well designed examples of the application of universal principles." ~~ David Holmgren

Offline Regular everyday

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Ukraine
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #12 on: 11/17/2020 03:32 pm »
Assume that trace evidence of life is found from materials that originated from the surface of Mars. A singular data point at a single time/location is announced by the President of the United States by all major news outlets and purveyors of nightly news.

What would need to be done next?
(poll) What does this mean?

It is intresting to know which Companies are working in the sphere of colonisating of Mars? I know one and that is Space X. And as we can see Elon have strongly armshaking with the missions wich he started

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #13 on: 11/17/2020 04:16 pm »
Assume that trace evidence of life is found from materials that originated from the surface of Mars. A singular data point at a single time/location is announced by the President of the United States by all major news outlets and purveyors of nightly news.

What would need to be done next?
(poll) What does this mean?

It is intresting to know which Companies are working in the sphere of colonisating of Mars? I know one and that is Space X. And as we can see Elon have strongly armshaking with the missions wich he started

I am aware of two companies actively interested in colonizing Mars: SpaceX, and Mars One. Mars One's fundraising arm went bankrupt, but the not-for-profit part of it is still operating, of course, without funding there's nothing they can do to realize their dream.

There's also the Mars Society, which is a non-profit advocacy group interested in public outreach and working out what needs to be done once people are on the surface of Mars.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Robert Hags

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #14 on: 11/26/2020 02:53 pm »
This quote from a link above was enlightening:

Quote
Governments do not give money to scientists so that they can tinker around and do whatever they want. So a scientist applying for a grant needs to know what he is doing. This forces everyone to be in a hypothesis-driven mode from the beginning and thereby leads to less transformative ideas in the long run. (Hat tip to Mehmet Toner for this point.)

I think I’m stuck with my thinking and trying to resolve differences between actual conclusions and hypothetical conclusions.
(Emphasis mine). No such thing. That's just a hypothesis.

Quote
I guess if I jump to a conclusion that life doesn’t exist, then I can colonize Mars in an unlimited way.  But then if I can’t jump to that conclusion and have to assume life existed, I have to practice unlimited caution to the point that one cannot do colonization. 
It is literally impossible to prove no life exists on Mars without literally turning over every rock and checking it etc. All you can say is that it is very unlikely there is life there. It is then a judgement call on the remaining level of planetary protection required.

Quote
So what does the scientific process do when other scientists have already jumped to a conclusion?
You grumble about them to your colleagues, you argue with them at conferences, you send in dissenting comments on their published work, you poorly review grants based on that conclusion, etc etc. There are no rules. It's an organic process.

I agree with you about "It is literally impossible to prove no life exists on Mars without literally turning over every rock". To my mind it is neccesary to looking for bacteria at the poles as there is still water there. And also at the depths of Mars. Today we find bacteria in our planet at depths of several kilometers, where they supposedly should not exist. That is why I think that it is also worth looking there. Nowadays we haven't even explored our oceans, which are teeming with life. How then can we judge a planet that has hardly been studied.

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 424
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #15 on: 11/26/2020 11:59 pm »
Quote from: New York Times, Jonathan O’Callaghan, Nov. 20 2020
Signs of Recent Volcanic Eruption on Mars Hint at Habitats for Life

Not thought to be volcanically active, Mars may have experienced an eruption just 53,000 years ago.

Previous research has hinted at volcanic eruptions on Mars 2.5 million years ago. But a new paper suggests an eruption occurred as recently as 53,000 years ago in a region called Cerberus Fossae, which would be the youngest known volcanic eruption on Mars...

Such volcanic activity could melt subsurface ice, providing a potential habitable environment for living things.

'To have life, you need energy, carbon, water and nutrients,' Dr. Anderson said. 'And a volcanic system provides all of those.'

This certainly draws geological and astrobiological attention to fossae and ice deposits near Elysium Mons. 

Refs.

Horvath, D.G., Moitra, P., Hamilton, C.W., Craddock, R.A. and Andrews-Hanna, J.C., 2020. Evidence for geologically recent explosive volcanism in Elysium Planitia, Mars. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.05956.
« Last Edit: 11/28/2020 12:44 am by LMT »

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #16 on: 11/27/2020 03:07 am »
Quote
1 Ancient life on Earth once visited Mars
2 Ancient life on Earth colonized Mars then returned to Earth
3 Life on Earth existed first, but was invaded by life on Mars
4 Life on Earth invaded Mars, but destroyed all life on Mars long ago
5 Life originated somewhere else (e.g. Phaeton), but colonized Mars and Earth.  But Mars life was destroyed.
6 Life originated from Mars.
7 Something else.

How would you test 1-6?

2-5 are also unnecessarily complex without strong evidence, e.g. fail Occam's razor

7 how about Life on Mars originated independently?  How would you test this?

Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 424
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #17 on: 11/27/2020 03:43 am »
Quote
1 Ancient life on Earth once visited Mars
2 Ancient life on Earth colonized Mars then returned to Earth
3 Life on Earth existed first, but was invaded by life on Mars
4 Life on Earth invaded Mars, but destroyed all life on Mars long ago
5 Life originated somewhere else (e.g. Phaeton), but colonized Mars and Earth.  But Mars life was destroyed.
6 Life originated from Mars.
7 Something else.

How would you test 1-6?

2-5 are also unnecessarily complex without strong evidence, e.g. fail Occam's razor

7 how about Life on Mars originated independently?  How would you test this?

Given hypothetical genetic samples, you'd expect bioinformatics to be useful, esp. computational evolutionary biology -- calculating inferences to relate any new branches of the tree of life, yes?

Physical location is immaterial to those computational methods.

Image:  Hug et al. 2016, Fig. 1.  "A current view of the tree of life, encompassing the total diversity represented by sequenced genomes."

Refs.

Bader, D.A., Roshan, U. and Stamatakis, A., 2006. Computational grand challenges in assembling the tree of life: Problems and solutions. Advances in computers, 68, pp.127-176.

Hug, L.A., Baker, B.J., Anantharaman, K., Brown, C.T., Probst, A.J., Castelle, C.J., Butterfield, C.N., Hernsdorf, A.W., Amano, Y., Ise, K. and Suzuki, Y., 2016. A new view of the tree of life. Nature microbiology, 1(5), pp.1-6.
« Last Edit: 11/27/2020 03:50 am by LMT »

Offline Forrest White

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • London
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #18 on: 11/30/2020 10:51 am »
If there could a life on Mars in the past - we would definitely find the signs to prove that someone was there, but still, we have nothing. Only the theories how aliens could possibly look like. If someone enters the Earth, he probably will finds the sings of life, right?

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #19 on: 01/29/2021 04:54 am »
If there could a life on Mars in the past - we would definitely find the signs to prove that someone was there, but still, we have nothing. Only the theories how aliens could possibly look like. If someone enters the Earth, he probably will finds the sings of life, right?

What do you see?

In the picture? Interesting rocks. Nothing more.

You don't want me to say what else I see.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #20 on: 01/29/2021 10:51 pm »
If there could a life on Mars in the past - we would definitely find the signs to prove that someone was there, but still, we have nothing. Only the theories how aliens could possibly look like. If someone enters the Earth, he probably will finds the sings of life, right?

What do you see?


I assume the picture is of somewhere on Earth? Reminds me of the time they were testing (in some desert on Earth somewhere) an experimental rover designed to look for signs of life. It went straight by an in-situ desert plant without 'noticing' it. By which I mean it wasn't picked up on its cameras or otherwise discernable by its off-site operators from their data feeds. While amused on-site observers looked on.

In other words, spotting signs of life is not as straightforward as it might seem.

Offline Nascent Ascent

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #21 on: 03/15/2021 02:42 pm »
A new species...

Pareidolia Maximus

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1782
  • USA
  • Liked: 1468
  • Likes Given: 2520
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #22 on: 04/11/2021 08:18 pm »
Really bad vote options.  The op is so hung up on pan spermia, 2 independent trees of life isn't even an Option

Offline Slarty1080

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2740
  • UK
  • Liked: 1871
  • Likes Given: 814
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #23 on: 04/16/2021 08:57 am »
Really bad vote options.  The op is so hung up on pan spermia, 2 independent trees of life isn't even an Option
Neither is the option that Mars is dead and always has been however uninspiring that prospect may be.
My optimistic hope is that it will become cool to really think about things... rather than just doing reactive bullsh*t based on no knowledge (Brian Cox)

Offline AU1.52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Life is like riding a bicycle - Einstein
  • Ohio, USA, AU1
  • Liked: 669
  • Likes Given: 719
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #24 on: 05/11/2021 06:12 pm »
Other - Life could have formed independently on both Mars and Earth and may still exist sub surface on Mars. We likely have brought life to Mars too already.

Offline Slarty1080

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2740
  • UK
  • Liked: 1871
  • Likes Given: 814
Re: Life on Mars
« Reply #25 on: 06/18/2021 10:41 am »
Fascinating article from last month showing evidence for fungi in a 70 page article. Getting a lot of very harsh reviews.

One author now doubling down with a second 107 page article (June 2021) about lichens on Mars. 


Fungi on Mars? Evidence of Growth and Behavior From Sequential Images


https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rhawn-Joseph/publication/351252619_Fungi_on_Mars_Evidence_of_Growth_and_Behavior_From_Sequential_Images/links/60b1127d92851cd0d9809bb6/Fungi-on-Mars-Evidence-of-Growth-and-Behavior-From-Sequential-Images.pdf?origin=publication_detail

 
Lichens on Mars vs the Hematite Hoax. Why Life Flourishes on the Radiation-
Iron-Rich Red Planet.



https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rhawn-Joseph/publication/352330548_Lichens_on_Mars_vs_the_Hematite_Hoax_Why_Life_Flourishes_on_the_Radiation-_Iron-Rich_Red_Planet/links/60cc22a9458515dc178cd0de/Lichens-on-Mars-vs-the-Hematite-Hoax-Why-Life-Flourishes-on-the-Radiation-Iron-Rich-Red-Planet.pdf?origin=publication_detail


Quote

Given evidence documenting biological residue in Martian meteorites, biological activity in soil samples, seasonal increases in methane and oxygen which parallel biological fluctuations on Earth, and pictorial and quantitative morphological evidence of stromatolites fossilized tube worms and metazoans, growth of mushrooms and fungi, and vast colonies of rock-dwelling lichens, it is concluded that the evidence is obvious: There is life on Mars.
Well looks like I'm actually going to have to read this...
Preliminary thoughts - these researchers have stuck their scientific neck out here. If they're right then they will become famous, more likely they are wrong and they will be forgotten (and short of grants).
Unfortunately there are very many physical and chemical processes capable of producing strange organic like growths such as these vines and tube worms:



Its a bit like UFO's they exist, but the least likely explanation for them is ET.
« Last Edit: 06/18/2021 10:44 am by Slarty1080 »
My optimistic hope is that it will become cool to really think about things... rather than just doing reactive bullsh*t based on no knowledge (Brian Cox)

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1