Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oxygen levels on Mars go up 30% in the summer, then back to normal in the autumn. Some sort of photosynthesis analog? (carbon dioxide + water + energy source = glucose + oxygen)
Naaah, just another pointer to life on Mars that they wont accept.
It is proably some "outgassing" or ancient plant life decomposing or the CO2 being hit by the cosmic rays have degraded it into O2. Or...maybe a weather balloon.
You know how they make up all kinds of clap-trap reasons why there is no life on Mars.
Naaah, just another pointer to life on Mars that they wont accept.
It is proably some "outgassing" or ancient plant life decomposing or the CO2 being hit by the cosmic rays have degraded it into O2. Or...maybe a weather balloon.
You know how they make up all kinds of clap-trap reasons why there is no life on Mars.
As I've said a number of times before in this forum, the claim that scientists are denying the existence of life on Mars is just plain false. Saying they're making up "clap-trap" reasons is unfair to the researchers in question as well as being a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works. Scientists admit there are suggestive results, but in the absence of further data that's all they are -- suggestive. That's why we're sending a rover intended to directly target the discovery of life next year.
When the Viking biology experiment gave positive results in the 1970s, researchers were initially excited then tempered their enthusiasm when an alternative explanation involving peroxide chemistry was proposed. Today, the issue has been reopened and some suggest the original experiment did in fact discover life on Mars.
In 1996, objects were found in a Martian meteorite that may represent fossil life. Or not. There's been a lot of discussion and back and forth. More than 20 years later, we still don't know the answer.
In 2004, the Spirit rover showed signs of cohesion in the soil in its tracks; this is consistent with it having disturbed a microbial mat under the top level of soil. To date we don't have a better answer than that.
It's a dialog over time, and eventually the answers are found. At present, we don't know whether any of these things represent life on Mars. The answer is more research and experiments targeted to find additional data that will resolve the ambiguities in the interpretation of the earlier data. This is not anyone being short sighted or pushing an agenda; it's how science works. No one would be more excited to identify life on Mars than these researchers who have devoted their lives to finding it.
From your original link: "Scientists expect that non-biological explanations are more likely and are working diligently to fully understand them."
They did mention that it could be a biological explanation; but it looks more like they anticipate a abiotically source. We will have to wait and see.
While many speculate that Mars has naturally occurring microbes; I think there is always the possibility that we could introduce new microbes to that environment.
From your original link: "Scientists expect that non-biological explanations are more likely and are working diligently to fully understand them."
They did mention that it could be a biological explanation; but it looks more like they anticipate a abiotically source. We will have to wait and see.
That was the same case back in the 70s with the spike of activity Viking observed - they thought it was too great a reaction to be biological. Now they're not so sure it wasn't biological.
Quote:
While many speculate that Mars has naturally occurring microbes; I think there is always the possibility that we could introduce new microbes to that environment.
Unfortunately, they haven't sterilized landers since Viking days which could make interpreting experiment results difficult. They're counting on earth microbes not being able to survive on Mars - which doesn't seem a sure bet with all the extremophiles we've been identifying on Earth the past few decades.
My guess is any surviving life adapted to life underground (or in lava tubes, at the bottom of canyons, etc), and our landers are unlikely to affect it. The problem will be: if we do find microbes, either (1) the genetics will be different from anything found on Earth indicating independent evolution, or (2) they will be related to existing earth life, indicating possible transport from earth via meteorite in the distant past. If we send critters there and they survive, that clouds our ability to determine anything about the origin of Martian life -- or even makes it impossible. If Martian life and Earth life are genetically related, either life started on Earth and made its way to Mars, or life started on Mars and made its way to Earth, or the seeds of life came to both Earth and Mars from elsewhere. And if no life current or past is found on Mars, that's an important and interesting finding, too.
My guess is any surviving life adapted to life underground (or in lava tubes, at the bottom of canyons, etc), and our landers are unlikely to affect it.
My guess, on the other hand, is that they already have found life on Mars, they know it is there, and they just dont want to admit it.
It may not be human-sized life, but I definitely 100% think there is vegetable life (as in animal/vegetable/mineral) there, and possibly 50% snake and rabbit/cat-sized animal life there too. Many of those 'blueberries' are fungal as far as I am concerned.
I am also 100% certain there is flowing surface water on Mars too.
Last edited by ocpaul20; 11-15-2019 at 03:24 AM..
Reason: Mark this date for later !
That was the same case back in the 70s with the spike of activity Viking observed - they thought it was too great a reaction to be biological. Now they're not so sure it wasn't biological.
Unfortunately, they haven't sterilized landers since Viking days which could make interpreting experiment results difficult. They're counting on earth microbes not being able to survive on Mars - which doesn't seem a sure bet with all the extremophiles we've been identifying on Earth the past few decades.
My guess is any surviving life adapted to life underground (or in lava tubes, at the bottom of canyons, etc), and our landers are unlikely to affect it. The problem will be: if we do find microbes, either (1) the genetics will be different from anything found on Earth indicating independent evolution, or (2) they will be related to existing earth life, indicating possible transport from earth via meteorite in the distant past. If we send critters there and they survive, that clouds our ability to determine anything about the origin of Martian life -- or even makes it impossible. If Martian life and Earth life are genetically related, either life started on Earth and made its way to Mars, or life started on Mars and made its way to Earth, or the seeds of life came to both Earth and Mars from elsewhere. And if no life current or past is found on Mars, that's an important and interesting finding, too.
I don't know why we are putting off the inevitable; terraforming Mars? If we have not already; it is only a matter of time until we 'contaminate' the planet. As soon as we step on the planet or throw out our waste our microbes will go to work. So why not simply contaminate it with living organisms capable of transforming the planet into an environment more suited for human habitation? It has been speculated about many times and we tend to take the high ground where we do not want to hurt any indigenous life forms. But that is what we are all about; surviving and insuring that our species survives for the millennia to come.
Many countries are now talking about manned missions to Mars. Like I said; it will happen anyway. So why not have a discussion on what we want to introduce that might make the planet more habitual? It would be great to have higher concentrations of oxygen and some edible vegetation.
Naaah, just another pointer to life on Mars that they wont accept.
It is proably some "outgassing" or ancient plant life decomposing or the CO2 being hit by the cosmic rays have degraded it into O2. Or...maybe a weather balloon.
You know how they make up all kinds of clap-trap reasons why there is no life on Mars.
I just posted a thread with a declassified CIA document, that proves they observed intelligent life on Mars back in 1984.
They have not declared they have found life there yet and who knows if it wants what you are suggesting.
You would not want ET to come and terraform our planet for us just so they could live comfortably, would you?
It did not stop us from colonizing most of our planet. And it isn't only that; but we have all our eggs in one basket. If a catastrophe befalls Earth we do not currently have a backup. So it is a question of survival of our species.
We have rovers running around on the surface of Mars. We have taken many pictures and have no signs of intelligent life. Even if it lived in caves it would still leave telltale signs of its existence. Of course there is always the chance of bacterial 'life'; but, by terraforming the planet, we would allow more life to exist than the world currently supports.
We are going to do this regardless when we send out the first explorers. So all I am saying is: why not plan and do it right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
