Yet Another Are We Martians? 204
Quite a lot of people have been submitting the Wired article about the "discovery" of two strains of bacteria that could be extra-terrestrial in origin. Carrying along with that beat, the Boston Globe has a report about where life on Earth came from, and whether it was Martian in origin. *Rant* The Wired article in particular makes me cross. Two strains in question, to my knowledge, have been known by biologists for at least a couple decades. The fact that they /might/ be able to survive extra-terrestrial conditions doesn't mean they are extra-terrestrial. In fact, the environments where bactera like this are often found, like deep sea vents, are in many ways just as "bad" as extra-terrestrial travel. Perhaps it's a pot-kettle situation with me, but bad science coverage irritates me greatly. */Rant*
Siblings (Score:1)
For what it's worth... (Score:3)
Are we martians...? (Score:2)
Hmnnn, well I have been feeling a little green lately.
I don't know about this one... (Score:1)
It's not "bad science"... :) (Score:3)
Seriously, just about anything "could" survive interstellar space, under the right conditions. (If you were to cryogenically preserve a human, and lob them out into interstellar space, they'd be just fine. Until they hit something, that is, at which point they'd fragment over the landscape and make a bit of a mess for the locals to clean up.)
There is one other point to consider. Just as it's dangerous to mix matter and anti-matter, it's dangerous to mix reality with journalism. Both have to be kept seperate, at all costs, by powerful magnetic fields.
Re:For what it's worth... (Score:3)
Of course, each additional click on a story is another ad impression. That's their standard procedure, to make as sensationalistic a headlie as possible.
Marketing! (Score:2)
another example of improper extrapolation. (Score:3)
This type of sensationalism is the worst kind IMHO because it give the complete wrong impression of legitamate research. By setting up J.Q. Public to make the wrong assumptions you are in effect creating a truth.
Oh puh-leese! (Score:5)
There's only one thing that could give a solid (though not irrefutable) indication that Earth life originated on Mars: we go to Mars and we find a number of varieties of life, only one or two of which biochemically match the major categories found on Earth. Articles like the Wired piece are a waste of bits.
--
(No!) Fossils in asteroid from Mars. (Score:2)
I remember reading that the things they thought were fossils actually weren't, according to other researchers, and the biochemical compounds they had found could also, according to yet another group, be formed by processes other than life. After all the smoke cleared, it seems like only the original group of people who claimed to have found these fossils still believed that they actually were fossils, and none of the other scientists in the field.
Hype (Score:2)
However, all of this Life Started on Mars stuff is mainly hype, because they don't have anything else exciting to post about scientific discoveries. The prospect of extraterrestrial life is sure more interesting to most people than most scientific discoveries that have a lot more backing.
This is just something a lot of media will be talking about right now, now that they don't have a Y2k bug to hype.
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
The Article Everyone Missed (Score:5)
It's a shame no one else has noticed the second article Wired posted a little while later...
They Published from Outer Space
AP
3:15 a.m. 13.Jan.2000 PST
The same astronomers who reported on Wednesday they had found a tough but peaceful pair of bacteria that might have been able to survive the arduous trip from Mars, back when the Red Planet could have supported life, have also discovered that a paper copy of Wired magazine is also capable of surviving the trip. From this they theorize that Wired is from Mars, or possibly Uranus.
Sargent
The impact (Score:5)
Basically, the idea was that the Earth got hit by another planet, at a fairly oblique angle. The show argued that this would explain why the Earth has an iron core (we got most of the iron from the other planet, in addition to the one we had already), and so on.
Since the impact was so cataclysmic, everything on the pre-impact Earth (Earth Mk I) got annihilated, and everything on the impacting planet gets killed too (since both planets get liquified).
My question is this: if we assume that the moon-creating impact happened, then WHEN did it happen, and how does that affect the possibility of life arriving on Earth from elsewhere in the solar system?
I mean, if everything on Earth (even bacteria) got killed only a couple billion years ago, it makes it somewhat unlikely that anything could have arrived from Mars post-impact, given the purported rates of Mars Rock Impacts mentioned in the article . . .
I dunno; it struck me as interesting.
Not just Mars (Score:3)
Bad science?? (Score:2)
Yes, the bacteria in question have been known, but so has copper and silicon! For some reason they just didn't make processors with it thousands of years ago. It's a matter of putting pieces of the puzzle together. And that's science.
Of course one can't say that the bacteria has stayed exactly unchanged during those millions of years, but the fact that there is some strain of bacteria which fits the requirements for some theory is a scientific finding. Suppose they hadn't found any such bacteria? It would have been an argument against the interplanetary-micro-organism-migration scenario. IMO this is a scientific finding, and to label it as "bad science" is only a sign of ignorance or stubbornness or both.
So what? (Score:1)
What's so FSCKing important? I just don't get it.
kwsNI
Re:eh.. its bad science (Score:1)
Let's apply Occam's Razor... (Score:2)
This seems all a bit convoluted to me. Just because it's possible that life originated on Mars and then travelled to Earth doesn't mean it did, or that it really even matters.
Current thought on the matter leads us to believe that life will begin given the proper conditions. (i.e. hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc... with a little electricity too).
With this in mind, why couldn't life have originated on both planets, perhaps many times on each planet? If, given enough time, and the right conditions, life will start, then why do we insist on saying that life started with a single cell that then started all of life? There could have been many, many original cells.
and if we are ... (Score:2)
send flames > /dev/null
Why is the real story being supressed? (Score:3)
Just because we were able to land a few objects into Martian wilderness without incident means nothing, they got their defenses up and now we can not visit until an interplanitary war is fought and won!
Is everybody forgetting that all of those aircraft shot down in the Nantuckett Triangle happened when the flight plans were filed in time for the Martians to target the triangle and fire an intense energy weapon to destroy the aircraft?
These events are not the work of bacteria!
Re:Oh puh-leese! (Score:1)
And did you notice there was NO fine print saying "No bits were harmed during the production of this article"?
Kaa
Re:Marketing! (Score:1)
Only through hard work and perseverence can one truly suffer.
Wishful thinking (Score:4)
I read a good book on the subject which I think should be recommended reading to all conspiracy/"aliens on earth"/"unproven scientific hypothesis" buffs out there : Carl Sagan, "The Demon Haunted World : Science as a Candle in the Dark". Although there's plenty in there to disagree with, he makes some excellent logical points of how incredible science already is without having to invent hypotheses based upon almost negligable circumstancial evidence, with no scientific rigor, and convincing ourselves it's true.
In this case, we go from "bacteria can survive acceleration and radiation" to "therefore life may have originated on Mars", (Ok, and the circumstances make it possible). The ability to survive such extreme conditions is probably why it survived on Earth in the first place. They choose to focus on the most fantastic possibilities, how are we to maintain our scientific objectivity when those who are our "proxies" and report the science to us focus on the aspects of the discoveries that are the closest to our fantasies and fail to report any other possible explantions for their discoveries before they have even begun the task of elimination.
Ok, perhaps I'm being a bit extreme here, but I just think we should rule out the probable and the likely before we start believing in the highly improbable, even if the fantasy stories sell so well.
Wired's Science Coverage Sucks (Score:1)
Given how much interesting real stuff is going on in science all of the time, you'd think that Wired would have no trouble finding stories to write. Instead, they seem to have consciously decided to focus on "fringe" stuff (cold fusion, anti-gravity, etc.), publishing long, credulous pieces that parrot various crackpot's claims that they are being "oppressed by the scientific establishment".
Now this article is nowhere near as bad as some of the stuff they've put out in the past, but it seems like further evidence of something I've long suspected: they are using science writers who both don't know and don't like science. Clearly it takes some goofy X-files type stuff to get their attention.
The irony is that the demographic reading Wired is probably much more interested in science, and in a much better position to understand and appreciate non-stupid science coverage, than your average readers.
Re:(No!) Fossils in asteroid from Mars. (Score:2)
Some say that the rock was contaminated by Earth compounds, but others say that the chemicals detected are too far inside the rock for external terrestrial contamination. This particular group of chemicals *can* be formed by other processes than life, but IIRC living organisms are the most common source of them.
And some scientific discoveries have continued to muddy the waters further. One of the original problems with the "bacteria" theory was that the fossils were FAR too small, and that terrestrial bacteria had never been found that were of comparable size. Not too long ago, bacteria on that scale were discovered (and dubbed "nanobacteria"), which means that it is at least within the realm of possibility that they are fossils.
As most people say, the chances of ever knowing for sure are pretty slim unless the Earth, or some portion of it, gets off their collective arse and funds a scientific discovery mission to Mars. For $50 billion dollars, we can send human beings to Mars for a two year surface mission using existing technology. Split up among several countries, or funded by a large number of private corporations, this would be achievable within a decade.
Right... (Score:1)
knows this article is a big load of crap.
Just try to imagine it. You are Bart the
Bacteria, you live on Mars. One day while
you're walkin' around, a big meteor hits (It
had to be quite a big one, or a very fast one...
it was to launch pieces of debris into space.)
It hits next to where you're standing, but you're
lucky you can deal with the heat and the impact,
and while you cling hard to the rock on wich you
stand you are hurled into space.
Now in space it gets real tough. Luckily you need
no air and radiation can't hurt you...
Clinging to the rock you notice you are lucky,
you're apparently heading toward that little blue
planet over there.
When entering earths atmosphere you thank father
nature (remember you're from Mars, mother nature
is from earth) that he's blessed you with this
heat shield that saved you life once and is now
saving it again. You als thank him that not only
you are equiped to survive in near vacuum, but you
can also survive the highly corrosive oxygen (you,
also being known as smart Bart, know that this is
not so common as one might think, because most
life forms need "oxygen (XOR) nooxygen" in order
to survive. ) that surrounds your new home planet.
Now the landing was easy... You're a tough guy
and the G-forces from the impact mean nothing to
you. (if you land on solid ground) If you were
to land in water your rusty and trusty heat-shield
is going to protect you from the hot steam...
"Well", you think, "here I am, the toughest living
being ever. I will do good for this planet..."
If anyone interested how this story ends,
just let me know... i'll gladly tell you the end.
(Just to get you pondering it envolves some
stupid "scientific reporters" and some people
having a brain the size of a dried grape...)
Still can't believe any sane person can believe
this crap...
J.
whoopee doo (Score:1)
Whats popular science tripe like this doing in wored anyway? I thought it was a tech mag?
Pardon? (Score:1)
>"They don't cause any disease, they are very >peaceful."
Have you ever known a malicious bacteria? I can just see it, walking down a back alley going home and getting mugged by that damned bacteria.
Just something funny that crossed my mind.
So? (Score:1)
-Price
Re:It's not "bad science"... :) (Score:2)
You forget about the radiation levels out there. Without any atmosphere to shield them, they'd be subject to higher levels. Radiation will damage most organic tissue whether it's frozen or not.
Hurl a cryogenically preserved person into space, and if they aren't hurt from other sources, the radation would probably prevent their thawing.
---
Re:whoopee doo (Score:1)
Well, there's Terrance McKenna.
No, wait, he just thinks we co-evolved with trippy mushrooms, it's the DMT that he thinks is from another dimension.
George
God's Creation (Score:1)
Re:Let's apply Occam's Razor... (Score:1)
We all know where life REALLY came from... (Score:2)
I don't know what all this talk of "microbes" and "asteroids" is.
Thank you Douglas Adams.
A wealthy eccentric who marches to the beat of a different drum. But you may call me "Noodle Noggin."
I've always wondered (Score:2)
To put it simply (Score:1)
I could've travelled here from USA. Therefore, I was born their. Cool, now I can claim US Citizenship.
Better article (Score:1)
Re:The impact (Score:2)
Scientific American had some pretty nice stuff about this theory when it first came out. Unfortunately, you'll probably have to track the story down in a dead-tree edition.
--
Mars got pasted, too. (Score:2)
In any event, I suspect that most every planet has taken a few really big hits at one time or another.
----
Re:The impact (Score:2)
I wouldn't discredit this theory outright.
Also, don't recent findings suggest that all life on earth stems basically from one type of bacteria, which could have been only one of
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
No, it makes sense :) (Score:3)
CNN is owned by TimeWarner.
TimeWarner is merging with AOL.
AOL is populated by martians. Surely we won't admit they're regular Merkins like the rest of us, right? Ok, maybe they're merkins [straightdope.com], but surely not Americans? C'mon people, back me up on this....
I'm guessing they're trying to get some nostalgia clicks from martian AOLers pining for the motherland.
Re:The impact (Score:2)
Mars, being smaller, would've cooled earlier than Earth and, assuming life gets going in the same amount of time as it did on Earth, would've formed lifeforms earlier than the Earth did. Since early in our solar system's history, planets were being subjected to meteor bombardment, there were probably many Mars rocks that were ejected into space that contained native lifeforms.
Even had life from Mars taken hold on Earth before the Moon was formed so violently, there's little reason not to think another life-bearing rock would've found its way to the post-Moon Earth surface (we've found dozens of post-impact meteors that we believe came from Mars that have landed over the course of prehistory). Some even believe that the Moon-forming impact actually created *better* conditions for life to take hold; which, in idle speculation, might mean that if life had spawned on pre-impact Earth, it would've been even more likely to get a foothold on post-impact Earth.
Disclaimer: I know what I know from reading and educating myself. I am not a telepath, clairvoyant, remote viewer. I do not have the ability to see historical or future events in my mind with any sort of accuracy. Therefore, take everything I say with a grain of salt.
Planetary Culture Club? (Score:1)
The *cogent aspect* is the recognition of how tenacious prokaryotic life is. If you've ever cultured bacteria, you know how they can grow on just about anything. And they are everywhere. If you just lift the cover off your culture plate for several seconds, and put it back, something will eventually grow. There's an organism for almost any condition. Deep sea vent bacteria grow on carbon dioxide and use hydrogen as an energy source. Dienococcus Radiodurans grows in glowing hot radioactive waste.
*Silly Aspect*: We have been exchanging rocks with Mars forever and the chances that we have not *cross contaminated* each other thousands of times are almost zero. The answer to where life started is buried back so far in time, that only planetary geology will give is our best clues to where life began. For all we know, life could have started on Europa, which is probably covered with water as well.
---->obqt
Tabloid treatment of good science (Score:2)
Fine. But is it scientific? What would occam's razor say? Yeah, it's reasonable that life originated on another planet (it seems really premature to suggest Mars), but isn't it more reasonable to suggest that it originated on Earth? Or that it has originated several times, on several planets, and occasionally been transported from one to another?
It's too early to rule out any of these scenarios (IMHO). Sensational headlines like "Scientists say life originated on Mars!!!" are more suited to publications like the Weekly World News [weeklyworldnews.com] than to scientific journals or even Wired, but that's where the tabloids get their material. Their writers skim the journals, find some poor sucker of a scientist, take his/her words out of context, and print an attention-grabbing headline and article. The underlying science may be good, but the spin that the tabloids (and sometimes the mainstream press) puts on it is far from scientific. Magazines get sold, and scientists get laughed at by their colleagues. If they're lucky they might save their careers. Oh well...
Re:Mars got pasted, too. (Score:1)
I believe the Iludium P-38 Space Modulator was running NT, and had a BSOD, causing a Mars shattering ka-boom.
George
Re:The impact (Score:2)
My thinking during the show was in terms of the Martian meteor found in Antarctica a few years back. It MAY be from Mars, sure. But, I'd tend to think that until we find similar rocks there, we should reserve judgement on the rocks origin. It's just as possible that the 'Martian' meteorite came from Earth Mk.I... It's further possible that if we DO find similar rocks on Mars (but not in abundance) then those too might be from Earth Mk.I.
As for some additional meat from the "If we had no Moon" program.. The collision with Orpheus (the planet that WAS between Earth Mk.I and Mars) wiped out all life on Earth. But, it may not have wiped out all life-yielding materials (organics, sub-microbes). The original Earth is speculated to have contained significantly more water than it does now. Most of it was lost in the collision.
The computer simulations of the collision were very intimidating. The Earth was badly mangled, losing it's spherical shape entirely, and literally turning inside out. The simulations didn't show what happened later (much later) but I wonder if Mars might not be what's left of Orpheus... Speculating, speculating. Anyone KNOW?
Re:eh.. its bad science (Score:1)
Although this does happen during a slow freeze (say in a home freezer), this does not happen when a body is frozen more or less immediately (such as being placed in liquid nitrogen). The ice crystals thing is not really relevant to cryogenics.
Re:It's not "bad science"... :) (Score:1)
Re:whoopee doo (Score:1)
Aha, thanks for the correction.
George
Deeper Conspiracy... (Score:1)
Here's a rough breakdown:
Except for the last part, I fully support tricking the public into paying higher taxes to fund NASA projects. I would support spy satellites, if they were "open-sourced", into the public domain! Sites, like Microsoft Terra-Server would provide realtime views of my city.
I say go with the story, no matter how misleading it is... We've got to get more people to believe space exploration is worth the money they're putting into it!
Re:another example of improper extrapolation. (Score:1)
It's kinda like those that say "because evolution *could* work, it must have happened."
Takes all kinds.
Evolution to this day has been represented as truth, though it isn't proven. Charles Darwin himself, after writing 'Origin of the Species', said that he was way off.
It's silly what some people will believe.
Re:The impact (Score:2)
It's pretty accepted these days that the moon was created in such a collision; but it happened a lot more than a couple of billion years ago. AFAIR it was about four billion; not long after the earth was first created. At the time, there were probably tens of protoplanets in the inner solar system; collisions on a smaller scale (but still huge) would have happened very frequently.
As for life: there's no question that any life would have had to have evolved (or arrived) after the collision; quite a while after, in fact.
Remember, too, that it's possible that life evolved on mars before a cataclysmic impact, and that it spent a billion years or so floating around the system before being sucked in by Earth's gravity.
Not Mars, but perhaps Io (Score:1)
However, the question is whether life could have
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
Re:The impact (Score:1)
It was further confirmed with Pathfinder/Sojourner when they drove Sojourner off to many of the rocks in the Pathfinder landing area. Most of the rock samples they took matched those of the meteors they found in the Antarctic ice flows.
The search for our origins... (Score:1)
Carpetbagger becteruim (Score:2)
Next week on Letterman, Dave interviews a Martian bacterium!!
Mars Marketing = Fresh Cash for Research (Score:1)
The humanity, (that people out there who don't care a sh*t about investigation) don't like governments spending money in space investigation. That's why whe are almost in the 21st century and we went as far as 40 years ago...Voyager, Mariner, Apollo...what the hell have we done to understand our universe?
Lifting a telescope? Yes, I know, it's good and I like it, Hubble gives us a lot of information and nice backgrounds to our desktops, but...Whe are far from making "real" travels across our solar system...I mean, with people actually going somewhere.
BUT if researchers use the magic word ("Martian") cash flows into research.
I guess the humanity (in a whole) is like a bunch of idiots still waiting to know if there are little green people in mars.
So if it's that what people want...keep looking for Martians (bacteria, green people or whatever).
Poor Carl Sagan...He wouldn't see something interesting even if he would live 100 more years...
Maybe not. (Score:2)
Occam's razor says to not to multiply entities unnecessarily. This isn't the same as saying that we should always pursue the simplest sounding explanation. And it certainly doesn't apply to the very early stages of the game where you don't have much hard data.
At this point, I don't think we really know what constitutes necessary. Current thought is, indeed, that life will happen, but there are about a million holes our view of exactly how the familiar kinds of life arose from the primordial stew. Decades ago we showed we can take inorganic molecules and create organic ones with a little electricity, but this is a far cry from creating even the simplest organism from scratch, and we haven't got much past that point.
Keep in mind that in the past few years we've been finding life all kinds of places we would never have thought it could be,such as in hot springs. To me,the most amazing thing are bacteria that are found inside solid granite miles below the earth's surface, ekeing out an existence from chemical energy at super-slow rates. It may turn out that when you factor in the viability of life in extreme conditions, and the astronomical conditions that prevailed in the early solar system, that it is extremely likely that life existed on Mars first, and furthermore it may turn out to be probable that at least some viable life forms were transported to the Earth around the time that life formed here, possibly independently.
It seems to me that this would be a very interesting and potentially fruitful line of investigation. If it turns out to be true, then it would matter quite a bit to our understanding of the processes of life, as well as being comparable to the Copernican revolution in changing our view of ourselves in the cosmos.
Re:and if we are ... (Score:1)
Contrary to popular belief, they did not outlaw the teaching of evolution in Kansas. It's just not statewide mandatory material anymore, it's up to each school district.
JD
Re:The impact (Score:1)
This is probably all speculation, because I don't remember it having much convincing evidence. Intriguing none the less.
Panspermia, denial of evolution (Score:3)
I appreciate your sarcasm! But there is even more at stake here than just flakey reporting and cluelessness
This is part of a reaction against the idea that life could have evolved here. It a displacing of the location of the improbable event in order to attempt to make it more palatable. It's the same sort of argument that Bertrand Russell attacked when he queried the "First Cause" arguments for God. If there is an improbable event and we keep on putting off it's cause, further and further back down a chain of events then that leads to infinite regress - we may as well bite the bullet and accept that it may have happened here on earth. To be fair, many of the early life theorists seem to feel that extra-terran origin would buy extra time for life to evolve, but I think that many in the evolution community would feel that there was enough time for it to happen on earth. The idea of life originating off earth and drifting around in space waiting to seed earth came, I think originally from Arrhenius in the 1920's and then was taken up by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe who called it Panspermia.
just about anything "could" survive interstellar space, under the right conditions
Sure, given the right conditions! But the fact remains that the right conditions for most organic life are not likely to be there! The problem for most of these things is ionizing radiation, which is why they are proposing that it would be carried within a meteorite. Once one makes that suppostion then the maximum radius that the life could have come from is limited by the maximum speed of travel of matter. Hence one is restricted to "potentially life bearing" planets near us. A more recent development of this idea has been that DNA or RNA coated in dust would be light enough to be blown on the solar wind over great distances. The dust would protect the particles. A paper in Science seemed to prove that this would mean that the particles would be able to disperse from a much greater radius to earth. I'll check the reference on that now if anyone is interested.
You say that this is not bad science [...] just good marketing , well I feel that there is a problem with that: it makes the public at first excited and gullible and then disillusioned and skeptical of all science. They are muddying the waters, not clarifying them. That's bad science. I don't blame them for wanting fame, funding but I think that it is short-sighted. Probably they are already being flamed by their more sober colleagues!
Re:another example of improper extrapolation. (Score:1)
Why do we need to be Martians? (Score:1)
Too many possibilities. (Score:2)
Here, I'll propose a (semi-)plausible (alien conspiracy) theory with almost no evidence--tell me what you think.
All life on Earth was engineered by hyper-intelligent beings on Venus. They realized that their planet was moving inhospitably close to the Sun, and they wanted something to survive them. However, they had polluted their planet (wars, manufacturing, whatever) to the point where it was inhospitable, and Earth still was, too, at the time. Now, we have evolved into sentient beings, and they are dead, as is all record of their civilization. (Venus looks pretty nasty right now)
There. So life began on Venus, and as *proof*, notice that nothing can survive on Venus anymore, but it could have in the past. Ooo!
Now you make up your story, and with the new rules of sensationalistic journalism, you too can turn Science Fiction into Science!
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
That's why we have Slashdot (Score:2)
Which is it? Are the mass media in the USA getting more and more stupid, or are they cleverly writing down to the level of their (true?) perception of a beer-and-football audience?
I always knew that the good science was poorly reported, and so would look for the real story somewhere like "Science News."
Now everthing is poorly reported _except_ bad science.
AFAIC, the internet came along just in time, else how would intelligent people discuss what is _really_ happening?
(Actually, I fear that my USA bias is showing here; I have heard that citizens of the old Soviet Union were/are quite adept at seeing through the media and discussing the politically unmentionable.)
Marketing and PR at work (Score:2)
NASA finds a meteroite in Antarctica that is possibly from Mars. First assumption, we're going off of chemical compositions in a tiny little rock that happen to be similar to what we see in the atmosphere of Mars, thus the stone most likly is of Martian origin. Is it possible? Sure. When you start talking about liklihoods though I think things get stretched. To say that that it is very likely is just flat out pushing it because we simply don't have enough data to verfify that method of determining the origin of a stone is highly accurate. We believe it to be but nobody has ever taken the blindfolded identify these stones test and passed because we have stone from Earth and some from the moon and that is all. It's a possible explanation and it's one that is feasable but it's still a big assumption to just say the stone came from Mars, especially since millions of non-Martian stones crash into our planet every year and we don't analyze them all.
Second assumption, some formations in the stone look like they could have been made by primitive life. This is a huge stretch and is only a possible explanation. If you start attaching liklihoods again this explanation becomes insulting because it is the least likely with the information we have. A failed Viking experiment that was unrecreatable was the only suggestive evidence that there is life on Mars. There are alternative explanations for the rock formations also, Martian life is just the most sellable one to the masses. If you want to talk "science" then there is very little evidence for life on Mars, close to none. Not that we shouldn't go to Mars and find out, not that we shouldn't go to Mars for the hell of it. The "life card" is just an easy way to get money for it and who cares if it hurts the credibility of the science.
Then somehow this jump is made from these weak assumptions. Despite the complete lack of evidence that life ever existed on Mars it is theoretically possible that life started on Mars and then came to earth. Yes I agree, it is theoretically possible however it is extremely unlikely with the evidence we have, the probability is incomprehensably small. It is some how more likely that life began on Mars than on Earth in this theory and the theory is getting attention! It is completely and theoretically possible that what we call "physics" is a localized phenomena that only occurs in our solar system, it's entirely possible maybe CNN will pay some lip service to that theory. Seriously, if we're going to publish articles in the mainstream media on these typesof theories, we might as well start treating creationism as a scientific theory because there is about as much evidence.
This is pimping of science in the worst way. We're talking about chains of what-ifs linked together and then given credence. And I hope that there are fossils on Mars, I'd love that but we just don't have anything. I would think that the astonomer community would want to keep this stuff under wraps to protect the science. Of course, it's easier to get money to go to mars to look for life than it is to go to mars to look at the rocks. Let's just hope that the masses never hold us to any of these promises.
It's unfortunate that people care more about what they do in their career than the science their career is based upon. We will make it to Mars in due course, that will happen. These kinds of "theories" are just being pushed to make it happen quicker. Theoretically, there will Martians waiting for us when we get there and they will tell us the secret of cold fusion, the head line should read "Trip to mars might make cold fusion possible" shouldn't it?
Re:eh.. its bad science (Score:2)
--
Here's why they think that (Score:2)
That gives us reason to think that if this bacteria evolved protection that would enable it to survive in space, there was likely a reason for it to do so, and one possible reason, it is theorized, is that the bacteria was forced to survive in extraterrestrial conditions.
Perhaps a large impact spewed it into space, killing all strains of bacteria except those that were able to survive the decreasing temperature and increasing radiation. Finally it makes its way to another (or **the same**) planetary body and is re-introduced as a new strain.
Or maybe, just maybe, it evolved this way for totally unrelated reasons, with something else about the mutation giving the bacteria an edge over other strains, and as a side effect, it also seems quite capable of surviving outside of our atmosphere.
It is logical to suggest that a bacteria evolved something because it was *forced* to evolve it, but that isn't necessarily the only explanation. Let the good scientists do their work, and take the media's coverage with a grain of salt and an eye for skepticism.
Where's JonKatz? Here's What He Would Write: (Score:4)
"Not since biblical times has such an important and critical media announcment come down the pike. We are martians. Yes, that's right. We. Are. Martians.
Now, we all know that the American constitution establishes free speech as an essential human freedom. But if we are martians what does this mean? Does it mean we are humans? Does it means we are martians? Does it, in fact, invalidate the American constitution?
I fielded several media calls about this major, earth shattering announcment: first from the New York Times, then from Chicago Tribune, and then from Vinny Bega in Trenton, a free-lancer who frequently consults with me in matters of national and global importance.
Vinny's first question naturally was this: "John, you're a media analyst and film critic. What's your take on the possibility that parts of our genetic make-up could be derived from martian genes?"
"Well, Vinny," I answered, "you know I shouldn't talk about this because I'm expecting a call from the president (who, by the way, felt that my review of 'Man In the Moon' was quite informative, and
"Wait, you mean Man on the Moon?"
"Man In The Moon, Vinny. Please. Listen to what I'm saying and don't correct me. Now, the announcment that --"
"Jon, is it true you're a college freshman?"
"Huh?"
"On Slashdot. I read that."
"A freshman?"
"Someone said what's a college freshman doing making movie reviews and fielding calls from major news agencies?"
"No, I'm older than that--"
"It's just a lie?"
"Vinny, you asked me a question."
"Yeah--"
"Then let me analyze."
"Biblical proportions," Vinny said, checking his notes. "Something about not since Moses parted the Red Sea did such --"
"Yes. Well, the question is this: free speech. I know the EFF is working on this one. But it's brings up the question of open source."
"Open source?"
"Yeah."
"What about the red sea?"
"Well not since then did a matter of this crucial, critical urgency arise."
"What about the AOL/Time Warner merger?"
"What about it?"
"You said the same about that."
"Yeah?"
"So not since the AOL/TimeWarner merger did such a critical, crucial event happen?"
Pause. "Wait, that was three days ago."
"Yeah..."
"Yeah, not since the AOL/Time Warner merger."
"You want me to write that, Jon?"
"That not since the merger? Or not since the red sea?"
"I dunno Jon, you tell me."
"Yeah."
"The Red Sea..."
"No..."
"The Time Warner..."
"Yeah."
"Okay, not since --"
"No skip it."
"What?"
"The merger. Don't write that."
"Don't write the Red Sea?"
"Or the Time Warner."
Pause. "Don't write any of it."
"Yeah."
"Okay."
Pause. "So that's it then? You got what you need Vinny?"
"Uh..."
"Remember this."
"This... what
"The martian story. Remember this. Write that."
"That we should remember this?"
"Yeah. Because it's big, Vinny. It's real big!"
"Big."
"Bigger than anything. It changes everything: free speech, open source, everything."
Vinny writing: "Changes everything."
"It's big."
"I got that."
"Real big, Vinny."
"This big?"
"No, bigger than that."
"Thiiiis big?"
"Yeah, about that."
"Wow."
"Wow is right."
"Okay thanks Jon."
"Anytime, Vinny."
Another example of improper time-line. (Score:2)
We observe evolution working; what do you think pesticide resistance in insects comes from? Speciation has been observed a number of times in just the last century. You can deny it, but if you believe that God made the world denying evolution implicitly makes you a heretic. ;-)
--
The real story is... (Score:2)
The truth is much, much simpler.
The basic building blocks of life are sprinkled throughout our solar system. They didn't originate here though.
They are the leftovers of an interstellar cruise ship blowing it's toilet waste into space (against regulations I might add) as it passed (no pun int) through our uninhabited and totally uninteresting area. Our cruise ships do the same kind of stuff all the time.
The dumped waste trail froze, circled the sun for a few million years, and crash landed on several planets. Europa probably got the lion share of what didn't get sucked into Jupiter. But Earth, due to it's balmy temperatures, is the only place where the waste could thaw.
Sort of puts a whole new perspective on the origins of mankind, doesn't it? We're 5 billion year old alien crap.
Alan Hills meteorite (Score:2)
Re:The impact (Score:2)
--
Re:Alan Hills meteorite (Score:2)
--
B. subtilis and D. radiodurans DNA sequences... (Score:2)
If B. subtilis and D. radiodurans are Martian, then just about everything else on earth is Martian in origin as well. Yes, the two organisms have some incredible survival abilities--but biochemically they just aren't that different from terrestrial life.
You can get sequence info on the genome for D. radiodurans here [tigr.org], and B. subtilis here [univ-lyon1.fr].
Basically, science knows a lot about these two organisms, and what we know suggests that they fit right into the phylogenetic tree [arizona.edu]. And even if they didn't, the fact that we can get a genome sequence *at all* would tell us they are probably related to terrestrial life.
The Globe's inaccuracies (Score:2)
Re:Alan Hills meteorite (Score:2)
AH84001 was supposed to be the point of origin of which Earth life forms, exactly? Hint: the title of this piece is "Yet Another Are We Martians?"
So it is not necessarily being claimed that there is a link demonstrated between the life-forms in the meteorite ALH84001 and any particular life-form on earth. It's like showing that there are micro-fossils of cyanobacteria and fossilized stromatolites that go back to 3.4 b.y.a. So, the timeframe in which life evolved has been expanded. For some people, not me as you seem to think!, this makes it more plausible that life could have evolved rather than been created.
Hint: the title of the article may be misleading! Don't believe sensational headlines contain all that you need to know ;P
Too simplified (Score:2)
Modern forms didn't exist in lower (and certainly older) fossil strata, but other things did
Actually fossil coelocanths existed that look the same as the "modern" living ones, also sharks show little change in their fossil record and certainly no clear patterns. Other problems include the molluscs (which tend to leave only shell morphology behind). The fossil record is spotty and stimulated the thinking that you describe (which I believe to be roughly true), but it is highly problematic and is not proof on its own.
We observe evolution working; what do you think pesticide resistance in insects comes from? Speciation has been observed a number of times in just the last century.
It is necessary to realize that there is a distinction between speciation (there are several definitions of this, but I'll assume you mean the Biological Species Definition=inability to interbreed), and evolution. The former depends on the latter as a mechanism, but the latter can happen without the former, and in fact for the case of pesiticide resistance this gives hope. We may be able to re-populate the gene-pool of resistant pests with susceptible genes at the same time as removing the selection conditions (pesticides) and then be able to use pesticides again at a later date.
The fossil record on its own proves nothing, Creationists are very adept at explaining it away. I'm interested in your "many observations of speciation" in the last century. COuld you list them? I should once again issue a disclaimer that I believe that evolution happens, it's just not so simple as you imply, there are lots of ingenious creationists out there.
Re:Oh puh-leese! (Score:2)
You sound like one of those Creationists who say: there's no evidence for evolution - the only way we can prove that evolution occured is if we see it happening with our very own eyes. Duh.
There's such a thing as scientific inference and deduction. We may not be able to conclusively "prove" (is there ever such a thing in science?) that life on Earth originated from Mars, but we can find good evidence for or against such a theory. Examples might be: signs of past life on Mars, evidence in meteorites found on Earth, etc.
Please... give me a rest (Score:4)
1. There are many qualified sources of biological information on the net. Contrary to what you probably expect(*), wired is *not* one of them, as opposed to Nature science update [nature.com], for example.
2. Although spores of B. subtilis are quite resistant to many external factors, it is a highly evolved gram negative bacterium - and it's ancestors, as much we can tell, do not share its peculiar capabilities. I could think about several higher organisms which could survived a direct impact deep inside a meteorite, but they could not give rise to the diversity of life as we know, not to mention that it would not fit into any theory explaining the mechanisms of observed evolution, because those insects - as well as B. subtilis - are quite specialized and, genetically speaking, very complicated life forms.
3. It is a well known fact that one could imagine a very primitive ancestor of all life forms as we know it capable of hitch-hiking through our solar system. Unfortunately, this is not sufficient for a sound scientific theory. This is why nobody takes the panspermia theory seriously, even though some great scientists are promoting it. Nobody but the media, but media take seriously even Microsoft publicity, right?
Regards,
January
(*) Whenever I read something like this /. news I feel the urge to reply quoting two polish humourists, J. Tuwim and A. Slonimski: "Dear madam; either someone did not inform you precisely enough, either - what the editors consider more probable - you didn't understand something. The man is not a descendant of Darwin."
Re:Right... (Score:2)
knows this article is a big load of crap.
Just try to imagine it. You are Bart the
Bacteria, you live on Mars. One day while
you're walkin' around, a big meteor hits (It
had to be quite a big one, or a very fast one...
it was to launch pieces of debris into space.)
It hits next to where you're standing, but you're
lucky you can deal with the heat and the impact,
and while you cling hard to the rock on wich you
stand you are hurled into space.
Now in space it gets real tough. Luckily you need
no air and radiation can't hurt you...
Clinging to the rock you notice you are lucky,
you're apparently heading toward that little blue
planet over there.
When entering earths atmosphere you thank father
nature (remember you're from Mars, mother nature
is from earth) that he's blessed you with this
heat shield that saved you life once and is now
saving it again. You als thank him that not only
you are equiped to survive in near vacuum, but you
can also survive the highly corrosive oxygen (you,
also being known as smart Bart, know that this is
not so common as one might think, because most
life forms need "oxygen (XOR) nooxygen" in order
to survive. ) that surrounds your new home planet.
Now the landing was easy... You're a tough guy
and the G-forces from the impact mean nothing to
you. (if you land on solid ground) If you were
to land in water your rusty and trusty heat-shield
is going to protect you from the hot steam...
"Well", you think, "here I am, the toughest living
being ever. I will do good for this planet..."
I can just see the microscopic little guy standing there yelling 'I AM the baddest mutha fucka on the planet!'
-OR-
As he tries to crawl out of his little rock Will Smith punches him in the head and drags him to Area 51.
Makes a nice counter image to the invading space fleet that gets eaten by a dog...
Re:Don't demean us all... (Score:2)
Did you know that "young-earth" creationist organizations do not send people out to do geological fieldwork any more? There's a reason for this; exposure to the evidence casts doubt on their dogma, and they wind up recanting it. It's much easier to sit behind a computer screen where you can just deny it. ;-)
It's Neandertal, and they are anything but hoaxes. New evidence about Homo Neanderthalis and their relationship to Homo Sapiens keeps popping up... of course, you'd know this if you read anything other than creationist tracts.Piltdown Man was a hoax, but who exposed it as a hoax? Hint: It wasn't creationists.
The old dogma of "separate kinds", I see. Yawn. This is more than adequately refuted by the talk.origins evolution FAQ [talkorigins.org]. Anyway, this has been proven false in this century; the phenomenon of one species breaking off into two populations which cannot inter-breed (the biologists definition of a species) has been observed. Depends if you count slime-molds or not; they go back and forth! Your question makes no sense in scientific terms; according to evolution, multi-cellularity only has to arise once, and from there it is "variations on a theme".The dramatic change of the horse from an animal the size of a small dog to something the size of a Clydesdale is one of many powerful testimonies to evolution.
Ah, you've been confusing fiction and reality. No wonder you're so messed up!--
Re:Too simplified (Score:2)
--
Re:Oh puh-leese! (Score:2)
If Earth life looks like a tree rooted from a cutting off the Martian bush, the theory is supported. (You'd expect this if Earth was colonized; it's the "founder effect".)
If Earth life bears no biochemical resemblance to Martian life, the theory has no support.
Is that clear enough?
--
Re:another example of improper extrapolation. (Score:2)
First of all, what does evolution's existance have to do with your life desisions?
And second of all evolution is a sciantific fact. The reason it isn't called a "law" is beacuse it cannot be described by a mathimatical formula. Newton's laws of physics are called laws, but there all wrong (to a very, very small degree)
I've looked at the evidence. It's nowhere near conclusive. The theory of evolution has so many holes that if it was anything else, it would have been dismissed a long time ago.
Well, you were probably fed some 'evedence' that the Fundi-Christian fed you. look at the real stuff [talkorigins.org] and see for yourself why so many people choose to belive in evolution.
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Where are we from? (Score:2)
Let me note one thing. Some specialized books on meteorites have, already in the 80's, put into a serious question some points on the origins of the so-called "martian" rocks. And the reasoning is quite serious. Many people may not know but some of these "martian" rocks do have some relationships with more "meteoritic" rocks and suggest an origin of a "third" planet. A planet with dimensions much like Io but with a nature more near to Ganymede.
However it should be noted that this does not deny absolutely the Martian hypotesis. And we have to count that Mars had a few serious crashes in its past. Sincerly there are a few scares that suggest three or four huge impacts or even more. And Hellas is probably second in the row. These impacts were enough to turn Mars into a geological, astronomical and physical mess. If we consider here the biological hypotesis, some ideas/theories/myths about aliens and our won experience with it, then the thing is a huge mega-mess.
Are we Martians? Well hard to believe. Anyway I think that we should not ignore other important doors. Frankly, academicists tend to ignore one fact. No matter how "isolated" we are, every piece of our solar system has somehow an "outside" origin. Could there be a chance that nearly 4 billion years ago we got a "galactic spaceship" made of rock and ice, with a "crew" of a few hundred "visitors", falling into Earth? And that we are the grand^10000000000 sons of these "little green beings"? Also not very probable but it is an idea no less crazy than Martian origins.
Anyway there is a serious problem to all this. We in fact are too Earthly. And even if Mars, Phaeton, X or Y would look much like Earth there would be chances that an "alien" would die upon arrival, even if it survived landing. Physical conditions can be very substantial for biological systems and a slight environmental change can be enough to start Armageddon all over. Well there could be chances but they are a Hell of a chance.
We probably are 99% earthlings. and there is nothing strange in this. Note that every system, upon certain conditions, has a tendency to create organisation. And some, like Earth, tend to create a very complex organisation. And note that this happens everywhere. And this does not go against the controversial Second "Law" of Thermodynamics (in fact an undemonstrated Principle). The Second "Law" is just a small water mirror of very complex processes. And it can only act if somewhere nearby there is something getting more organised. Earth is one of the places where a lottery of many many factors gave a chance to have slashdotters in its surface
There are a lot more of such worlds around. Soemwhere, at this moment, planets come and go, living beings born and dies. In a minute one civilization comes up and one goes into oblivion. Earthlings are still too Earthlings to note this moment. In fact their main origin is so embedded in their livings that they ignore 99,9999999999999999999999% of this Universe. And sometimes remember it to speak a few silly words about the worst tomb in the Solar System. There seems that Humans had always a salty taste for dark origins...
arg... (Score:2)
I tried to post a list, but I guess it was to long, I don't know if it got posted or not, slashdot gave me no conformation
Anyway, get your list at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/f aq-speciation.html [talkorigins.org]
"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
Don't trivialize (Score:2)
Are there any single-cell bacteria that have converted themselves into multi-cell versions?
>Depends if you count slime-molds or not; they go back and forth! Your question makes no sense in scientific terms; according to evolution, multi-cellularity only has to arise once, and from there it is "variations on a theme".
slime-molds are not bacteria. They are myxomycota fungi - eukaryotes! they're our close relatives!. For a picture click here [colostate.edu]
and for more information about taxonomy click here [arizona.edu]
and scroll to the bottom of the page. The latter is a cool page. You should also be aware that there is considerable controversy about the classifaction of any of these things and that these ones rely upon the use of 18S large-subunit rRNA.
My general point is that nothing in evolution and its study is as certain and as solid as you are making out, and further, that most of the support for evolution comes from molecular genetics, not from the fossil record which can be interpreted in all sorts of ways.
You are being too dogmatic - especially with regard to your horse example. This was one of the most embarrasing examples of "evolution", it was always presented as a succession of smaller to larger through intermediate forms. This linear pattern was seized on by creationists and debunked. Embarrassing and uneccessary, there is no need for regular "trends" in evolution to obtain.
There is controversy here and you are doing rationality and science no favours by trivializing and ignoring objections. Regards, Crush
My response.. (Score:2)
Your appreciation is not shared. (Score:2)
--
Even before molec.biol..... (Score:2)
Modern forms didn't exist in lower (and certainly older) fossil strata, but other things did. They further observed that the forms in between (in depth and age) more closely resembled the ones closer than those farther away; there was a progression in features over time. As some forms disappeared from the record, others branched off from forms existing before that.
A progression of features over time - forsooth!
molecular biology came along and backed up the tree of descent almost 100% Well, which tree of descent would that be? Do you realize that since the RNA sequencing revolution of the '70s the whole basis of taxonomy has shifted from 5 Kingdoms to 3 Domains? (Whittaker to Woese). Molecular biology has rocked our world dude!
There are two main things that I question in your postings:
1. You claim that the poster (paRcat, I think), that likened the claims being made in the article as being analogous in their illogicality to a claim that because evolution could have happened it must have happened, is wrong in this assertion. I see the two forms as being definitely analogous. They are assumptions that possibility is equivalent to probability. What is interesting is to examine the relative probabilities of theories. Evolution is the most probable on the evidence.
2. You claim that the fossil record is strong proof of evolution. It's not, look at the claims made by comparative morphologist prior to molecular biology and then look at the drastic revisions made as a result of phylogeny - molec.biol. has truly changed our picture. The fossil record on it's own is as I said, suggestive and contributes, but it has also been misleading. The claim that you make that the overall broad picture has not been in doubt for a century is meaningless, sure everyone is talking about evolution - but then so was Lamarck, so was Geoffroi de Ste.Hilaire - "evolution" in the debased sense that you use it just means change. The rest of your post is just an appeal to authority. You're fighting a straw man of the ignorant creationist that doesn't believe in evolution. Things are a lot more complicated than that and it doesn't help to have supposed advocates of evolution insisting that it is rock-solid. It is merely reasonably probable to a reasonable person that has examined the evidence. Science ain't about certainty.
Oh, and by the way Punc.Eq. is considered to be a "crackpot" theory by many and Gould has a good story about how he and other grad students booed down an early exponent of plate tectonics.
You've got it backwards (Score:2)
Evolution (as a scientific theory) started along with modern geology when it became glaringly obvious that other historical explanations of the origin and history of the Earth (the Bible's literal account of Genesis among them) were inadequate at best. In the process of pursuing the truth, the researchers have come to a few conclusions, well-supported by evidence and stringent peer review, which just happen to make a few people uncomfortable. So be it. If anything the Biblical literalists of the fundamentalist churches have defined themselves in opposition to science, not the reverse.
--
Re:Oh puh-leese! (Score:2)
What you're asking for is direct, observational evidence i.e. find life on Mars, and compare. If we can't find any existing life on Mars, reject the theory. Therefore the analogy to creationism: you will accept only direct observational evidence, which is neither necessary nor possible to produce.
You mis-interpret! (Score:2)
If anything the Biblical literalists of the fundamentalist churches have defined themselves in opposition to science, not the reverse.
If A is in opposition to B, does that not imply that B is in opposition to A?
W.r.t. it being "The" visible opposition I take your correction - there are of course the various political movements. However, I'm willing to bet as a reasonable person, that you, as a reasonable person, would upon a free-association test link creation/evolution pretty quickly. No?
It would appear that evolution makes more than a few people uncomfortable, there are whole states that dislike it. There are a shockingly high number of people that believe in creation. Part of the reason for this is that "evolutionists", whoever they are, have _not_ been careful in the examples that they used to try and convince people that "evolution is a fact". Another part of the reason is that there is socio-cultural opposition to the idea of scientific materialism. See R.Lewontin in the NYRB for an excellent essay [nybooks.com]
Aside from any of these points I admit that you're correct ;-)
The Loyal Opposition (Score:2)
--
Looking for the evidence (Score:2)
--
Re:Don't demean us all... (Score:2)
Delmoi dun said:
You can say that again... :)
First off, minor nit to pick--many (if not most) paleontologists are now firmly convinced that birds in fact are dinosaurs, specifically theropods (in fact, on lists that discuss dinosaurs, it is not uncommon to hear folks talk about "avialan theropods" [aka birdies]). This is because of a lot of fairly recent research into the matter (most of it only in the last ten to fifteen years, and possibly the most spectacular evidence only started coming to light around two years ago).
To give a good example of how the line gets real blurry...most paleontologists and others list Aves, that is, birds, as theropods closer to Archaeopteryx than to other dinosaurs. Well, there's now been found a wee problem with that--the closest relatives to Archaeopteryx turn out to be dromaeosaurs like Utahraptor and Deinonychus and Velociraptor, enough that some paleontologists want to make archaeopterygids and dromaeosaurs part of the same family. :) (This is partly from a lot of transitional fossils--which I'll get into in a bit--and partly because it's been found fairly recently that archaeopterygids have little sickle-claws on their feet and their body structure in general is amazingly similar to dromaeosaurs in general.)
Even worse, dromaeosaurs are actually younger in the fossil record than Archie is--there is the very real possibility that dromaeosaurs, which have traditionally been classified as dinos and NOT as birds, are actually secondarily flightless descendants of archaeopterygids or at the very least a sister group that evolved from a common ancestor.
The fact that a fair number of transitional fossils appearing to be transitional between Archie and dromaeosaurs (such as Rahonavis and some others) doesn't help, nor does the fact that it seems sicle-claws may have been a fairly common trait among early birds and dromaeosaurs.
It further yet doesn't help matters in sorting it out that feathers can no longer be used as a diagnostic characteristic of birds. For something like two years now, we have known about some amazing finds of dinosaurs with feathers (Greg Paul and Bob Bakker, who drew dinosaurs like Deinonychus and Compsognathus with feathers, were right all along and Jurassic Park was dead wrong with bare-nekkid dromaeosaurs)...the first non-avian dinosaur with protofeathers being Sinosauropteryx (thought to be a compsgnathid), Caudipteryx (thought now to be a basal oviraptor--incidentially, oviraptor clutching behaviour has now been proven in fossils--there is a fossil Oviraptor discovered that was covering its eggs exactly like a mother chicken), Protoarchaeopteryx,Archaeoraptor, and many others...the new Chinese dino fossils are really setting paleontology on its ear and pretty much have clinched that birds are theropods after all...
Which leads to one of the newest fossils found at the Chinese digs, Sinornithosaurus. This little fella is incredible--if he'd been found without the feathers he'd probably been classified as Velociraptor mongoliensis. But it was found with feather impressions, and so it is now recognised as the first definite feathered dromaeosaurid. (Yes, that's right. This proves, indirectly, that nearly all dromaeosaurs probably had feathers...I'll admit that seeing Deinonychus all naked BOTHERS me...if it's that bloody close to Archaeopteryx then by the gods it should have proper feathers, damnit! :) There's a neat little reconstruction of it at National Geographic's website, where a feature was done a few months back on the Chinese fossil dig (which is turning out to be giving stuff as amazing as the early discoveries of Archaeopteryx...which is only appropriate, as its cousin Deinonychus was the dino that first made men think (well, since the 1800's anyways) that maybe dinosaurs weren't slow and stupid :). [nationalgeographic.com]
There are some other examples that muddy up the waters for birds, too...one group that was once thought to have spawned wading-birds is now recognised as the first radiation of ducks (chadriiforme ducks) and then there were the phorusracids...large, flightless birds that existed till around two million years ago in South America, which redeveloped fingers and sickle-claws as they became ground predators, just like their ancestors 70 million years ago (yes, even after toothed birds became extinct, there were still enough non-avian theropodian traits that a "neo-neo-theropod" could evolve in phorusracid birds...)...so often things aren't as cut and dried as we like them to be. I think it's neat as hell, though :)
(OK, so I have just a WEE bit of passing interest in theropods, especially dromaeosaurids. Partly because I like to draw 'em on occasion (to the point of having done a "furry" pic of a feathered dromaeosaurid ;) and partly because I think they're bloody neat animals. I also admit the idea of the momma-cardinal that visits my bird feeder being a dinosaur is neat; I'll also dare anyone who witnesses a mob of sparrows fighting over a bird-feeder to deny birds are dinosaurian :)
Re:Looking for the evidence (Score:2)
It's unlikely that there's still liquid water on Mars. Which means that if there was ever life on Mars, it'd probably be extinct by now. In that case does this mean that it's impossible to show that life on Earth originated from Mars? No.
". Lack of support doesn't prove anything, it just doesn't give any grounds for believing it.
My point is that your criteria for evidence is unreasonable. You want direct evidence, in the form of a comparison between living organisms, one from Mars and another one from Earth. This is in all likelihood neither possible nor necessary.
Re:Bacillus (Score:2)
(Pause)
Oh.
Let me cover myself in mud and spend a couple of centuries there, then.
The funny is that I'm a bacterial genetist working with a gram po... ne... gram positive cousin of Bacillus. Theoretically I know how the cell wall of B. subtilis looks like (e.g. that it is much thinner than in the case of E. coli, a gram negative), so the interior part can get stained in the course of Gram staining, therefore making the cell "gram positive".
But I'm also dumb, arogant and stupid.
Somebody kick me, PLEASE!
j.
Biogenesis: A Start for Learning the Real Story (Score:2)
Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative
by Christian de Duve, Nobel Laureate for biology/medicine 1974
An excellent starting point into the origins of life on Earth (considers possible seeding from extra-terrestrial sources as one of many other possible theories) for interested parties who did not major in science in school (or even for those who did). Easy to read with full explanations and lots of interesting bits.
I have more of an engineering background but am interested in science as a hobby. I thought I was pretty well versed in the origins of life issue. This book filled in a lot of gaps I did not even know were there.
I am not going to make an excerpt from the book because to start I would not be able to finish until I had reproduced the book here in its entirety. I picked up a hardback copy from Barnes and Noble for six bucks. You can get it through an inter-library loan if your local library does not have a copy.
I highly recommend tracking this book down and reading it. It will provide a framework of knowledge that will allow you to glance at the headline of the article at Wired [wired.com] and not give it a second thought i.e. you will recognize it as merely another example of bad science reporting.
I think, therefore ken_i_m