Evidence of life on Mars lurks beneath surface of meteorite, NASA experts claim

[Ian David]

Source: TimesOnline

Nasa scientists have produced the most compelling evidence yet that bacterial life exists on Mars.

It showed that microscopic worm-like structures found in a Martian meteorite that hit the Earth 13,000 years ago are almost certainly fossilised bacteria. The so-called bio-morphs are embedded beneath the surface layers of the rock, suggesting that they were already present when the meteorite arrived, rather than being the result of subsequent contamination by Earthly bacteria.

“This is very strong evidence of life on Mars,” said David Mackay, a senior scientist at the Nasa Johnson Space Centre , who was part of the team of scientists that originally investigated the meteorite when it was discovered in 1984.

In a 1996 study of the sample, Dr Mackay and others argued that the microfossils were evidence of life, but sceptics dismissed the claims, saying that similar-shaped structures might not be biological. The new analyses, the product of high resolution electron microscopy, make a strong case for the Allan Hills 84001 Meteorite having carried Martian life to Earth. The microscopes were focused on tiny magnetite crystals present in the surface layers of the meteorite, which have the form of simple bacteria. Some argued that these could be the result of a carbonate breaking down in the heat of the impact. The new analyses show that this is very unlikely to have resulted in the kinds of structures seen in the rock. Close examination suggested that about 25 per cent of the crystal structures were chemically consistent with being formed from bacteria.



Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article6934078.ece

---

[RedCloud]

1. Dear Angry Red Planet. Sorry for the debris and defaming movies. Love, Earth

This could get back to haunt us!

[usregimechange]

2. Big news, we may not be alone

[daleo]

3. I am inclined to agree with the life on Mars evidence

I am also inclined to think that Viking's life experiments showed good evidence of life, overall. It seems likely now that the critical experiment that gave a negative result just didn't have the sensitivity that it was assumed to have at the time.

If nothing else, it shows the need to repeat the Viking work, with more modern equipment and techniques.

[struggle4progress]

4. Is there life on Mars? - November 27, 2009

Well, British tabloid The Sun says there is ...

NASA’s Kathie Thomas-Keprta and colleagues ... looked again at whether the carbonate formed in relatively hot or cold conditions, and concluded the latter. They looked again at the magnetite, and reckon that most of the crystals came from somewhere else – not from some thermal process going on in the carbonate.

So the magnetite came from somewhere else? “This origin does not exclude the possibility that a fraction is consistent with formation by biogenic processes, as proposed in previous studies,” the team conclude in their paper.

Hmmmm. For me, going all the way from "does not exclude the possibility that ..." to "Martian bugs arrived on Earth 13,000 years ago" still seems like a bit of a stretch.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/11/is_there_life_on_mars.html

[mike_c]

5. so with a sample size of two rocky planets orbiting in the life zone of one G-type star...

...we have life evolving for certain once and with increasing probability in 100 percent of samples.

My view has long been that self-organization is one of the fundamental properties of matter, and that what we call life-- the property that my profession dedicates itself to studying-- is quite likely an emergent property of that organization. I expect we'll find it all over the universe if we last long enough to go looking.

[Peace Patriot]

14. Yup, this would answer my question: WHY does matter make beautiful spiral galaxies?

Hubble and Big Bang theory told us that everything in the universe is rushing away from everything else, at tremendous speeds. That makes sense (big explosion moving outward, redshift, etc.) except for this: WHY does matter "self-organize" along the way? Why didn't it just blow itself all to hell and gone, and not aggregate, let alone aggregate in beautiful, massive structures that are almost always spirals or tending toward spirals, and furthermore form clusters of galaxies?

IF "gravity" is the answer to this question ("gravity" pulling matter into stately spirals with black holes at their center, and then pulling those structures--galaxies--into clusters of galaxies) , then why isn't this same force, "gravity," stopping the expansion?

This is the basic contradiction at the core of the Big Bang theory, that has always bothered me. (It started with a question I had, thus: Why is everything at the mid-macro-level ROUND, or tending to round: planets, suns, moons? And then its corollary: Why is everything at the macro-level spirally, or tending to spirally, and some of it round or tending to round (there are round or oval galaxies, and clusters of galaxies)?

The ultimate answer may be that we just have a serious problem comprehending the whole. Something is going on in the macro-structure of the cosmos (or cosmoseS) that our brains and instruments can't yet (and maybe never will) grasp. But an alternative ultimate answer may be that "self-organization is one of the fundamental properties of matter," as you have stated--that there is something in matter itself that we have not yet discovered that counters the propulsion of the Big Bang with an inherent tendency to design itself into INTRICATE structures, big and little, including human beings.

Call it the "Cornucopia Principle": Nature loves a design, and can't stop itself from producing millions and jillions of varieties of its basic designs. I mean, really, why are there NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND species of insects on earth alone? (--and that's just the ones we know about--estimates run to 2 to 3 MILLION different species, and 10 quintillion individuals alive at any given time).

http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmnh/buginfo/bugnos.htm

And that's just on earth!

As to what I believe to be possibly true about the ultimate reality of biological life arising in all of this whirling, spiraling matter, I am somewhere half way between the Evolution Theorists and the "Intelligent Designers." Our brains perceive design--and, indeed, CRAVE design--therefore design EXISTS. And we will someday find that template in all matter.

Human beings have always called forces they don't understand "gods" (the god of thunder, the god of fertility, the river god, the god of the local creek, the sea god, etc.). So, too, the current, more abstract concept of God (one, all-seeing, all this and all that, Creator of everything) may be a projection of this ultimate principle of matter--as yet undiscovered--which rules what matter does: creates fabulous varieties of DESIGN that defy propulsion into oblivion.

[Stargazer09]

6. Considering the incredible diversity of life on Earth

Life exists all over the universe. Just because we haven't found it yet doesn't mean that it's not out there.

If you think about it, we are still discovering forms of life here on our own planet that we didn't know existed until recently (mostly life in the deepest parts of the ocean or in the most inhospitable areas on Earth). If we don't know everything about life here, how can we make assumptions about life elsewhere?

[deutsey]

13. Exactly...considering all the suns and planets out there

we'd be crazy to assume life only exists on Earth.

I even believe that there are civilizations on other planets. Whether they've developed intra- or intergalactic space travel is still uncertain to me (i.e., I don't necessarily believe UFOs are visitors from other solar systems), but that doesn't have any bearing on whether advanced cultures exist beyond our solar system.

[and-justice-for-all]

7. Wonderful news...nt

[TexasObserver]

8. K&R

[Kurska]

9. Not surprising at all.

People once said it was impossible for life to exist at the bottom of the ocean, then we found out about chemosynthesis.

[Ian David]

12. Don't forget radiosynthesis

Newfound Bacteria Fueled by Radiation

<snip>

A team of scientists has found bacteria living nearly two miles below ground, dining on sulfur in a world of steaming water and radioactive rock. A single cell may live a century before it gets up the energy to divide. The organisms have been there for millions of years. They will probably survive as long as the planet does, drawing energy from the stygian world around them.

The microbes, found in water spilling out of a fissure in a South African gold mine in 2003, are not entirely new, the researchers report in today's issue of Science. They are similar to ones found in other extreme environments and among the most primitive life forms ever described.

What is unusual is that their underground home contains no nutrients traceable to photosynthesis, the sunlight-harnessing process that fuels all life on Earth's surface. Such a community is an oddity on this planet -- and is of interest to people looking for life on other ones.

"There is an organism that dominates that environment by feeding off an essentially inexhaustible source of energy -- radiation," said Tullis C. Onstott, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the team. "The bottom line is: Water plus rocks plus radiation is enough to sustain life for millennia."

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901671.html

[bhikkhu]

10. One big impact would be on the Drake Equation

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

...if it was found that their was life on Mars and it wasn't related to life on earth, or had developed independently. The Drake Equation tries to calculate the probability of life and civilization existing anywhere else in the universe, and the probability of life developing independently anywhere at all is one "wild guess" in the equation.

[Dogmudgeon]

11. "I, for one .."

Oh, screw it. I have come to really HATE that damn phrase.

--d!

[KakistocracyHater]

15. to think in 1986 they totally blasted the idea, despite seeing in telescopes

what looked liked river streams-not possible. Now it's "THERE MAY BE LIFE ON MARS!!!" Wow, big difference. I mentioned the streams could have been liquid helium or something other than water. This & "discovering extra-solar planets" in the 90s.......I was surprised at the egotistical belief that all those stars had nothing orbiting them.