Mars Rock Supports Cross-Seeding Theory 305
914 writes "Mars rover Opportunity has found a rock (nicknamed 'Bounce') that "provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding." Not only that, but according to the UPI article: 'The discovery of Bounce raises the distinct possibility that life arising from a common source could have existed for a time on both worlds.'"
Which was first? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Which was first? (Score:5, Funny)
nyaaah nyaah dumb Martians picked the wrong planet.
Re:Which was first? (Score:3, Funny)
Pasadina: What's that flare? See it? A green flare coming from Mars. Kind of a green mist behind it. It's getting closer. You see it, Burmuda? ...Come in, Burmuda! ...Houston, come in! What's going on... tracking station 43 Canberra, come in Canberra!... tracking station 63, can you hear me Madrid... can anybody hear me? Come in...! Come in...........!
1970 (Score:2)
Re:Which was first? (Score:2, Interesting)
Noah's Ark, in my theory, is an allegory to a spaceship fitted for colonization of a foreign planet. You bring paired species to repopulate another world. Taken literally, this falls flat on it's face, because genetic diversity of most higher species wouldn't be great enough to support more than 2 generations, 3 w
Re:Which was first? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an idea I've heard before, but I can't see it making sense. There's evidence of life on earth (including our ancestors) for millions of years. The Bible was only written a few thousand ago. Do you think that our chimpanzee-esque forebearers preserved the history orally all of that time?
Re:Which was first? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Which was first? (Score:3, Interesting)
Filter this through word of mouth, retranslation, transliteration, etc... and you end up with Noah and the Ark. Just google "Noah Ark Sumerian" [google.com] for more info. There are even ancient clay tablets that
Re:Which was first? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Which was first? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me like people are jumping to conclusions here. Isn't it possible that some other source, source C, was where these meteorites originated and then later collided with both earth and Mars?
The only thing which seems to not support this is
from the article:
"Micro-bubbles of gas trapped in dozens of meteorites found on Earth -- including Shergotty -- match the recipe of Martian atmosphere so closely that they must have originated on Mars."
But couldn't there be some other place (source C in my example above) which also has an atmosphere with such a "recipe".
Or are these atmospheric "recipes" that unique? (And if so, how was that determined?)
Re:Which was first? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Which was first? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Which was first? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Which was first? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it certainly is possible. However it is unlikely. The sort of analysis that goes into determining the source of origin of a rock is fairly accurate. There are a number of factors which are taken into account which, when combined, form a fairly unique "fingerprint" as to the origin of a piece of rock.
First of all, there is the relative amounts of elements. Mars has a different elemental mix than the Earth due to its distance from the Sun, its mass, the loss of atmosphere and water, among many other factors. Then there is the different proportions of isotopes of each element. Earth, partially due to the shielding afforded by its atmosphere and its magnetic field, has a different mix of isotopes of each element. Remember that each element often has 2 or 3 common isotopes, this significantly contributes to the complexity of the fingerprint.
Then there are differences in rock formation between Mars and the Earth. Rocks formed on Mars have gone through a different history of sedimentation, melting, crystallization, weathering, etc. than those formed on Earth. This results in not only different minerals being formed but also the patterns of how these minerals mix and the relative proportions that one mineral may be found in a mixture with others.
I'm probably missing a few other factors but you get the idea. Remember that the process of identifying rocks is not only used to tell if a rock is from Mars or the Earth but it is also accurate enough to possibly be used to tell if a rock is from near Moscow or from near Los Angeles. Scientists can get a fairly good idea of where on the Earth a diamond or a piece of uranium originated simply by using some of these techniques. Analysis of the isotope ratios alone is a strong indicator.
Re:Which was first? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Which was first? (Score:3, Informative)
It turns out that isotope ratios tell you a lot about the history of an atmosphere, as different isotopes get lost at different rates by different mechanisms.
The gas isotope ratios in these meteorites are unique to Mars, as measured by Viking. There are many other indications (most meteorites can be
Re:Which was first? (Score:4, Informative)
There's a documentary... (Score:2)
Check out this documentary [imdb.com].
Re:Which was first? (Score:4, Insightful)
1-God created us, God created them.
2-Good old fashioned denial, e.g. creationism, age of the earth, flat world theory, and so on.
Never underestimate people's ability to suppress inconvenient realities.
Re:Which was first? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus the third possibility is that various other "nonstandard" ( in the sense that only billions of people adhere to such relgions, just not typically those people in Detroit). Some of these religions have already made strong footholds, at least, in Europe and the United States. Buddhism is widespread enough among physicists that it hardly even raises an eyebrow any more (well, at least not both eyebrows).
And the fourth possibility is the rise of new relgions founded upon these new ideas.
People are adaptable, even if dogma is not.
Of course there's also the possibility that the answer to the question "who was first" is neither the Earth or Mars, that each was seeded from some third bit of interstellar dust carried across the winds of space and time that predates us both, and by a goodly margin.
Yeah, that'll give those of the Judeo/Christian/Ismalic bent something to chew over, and quite possibly deny. There are still plenty of Millerites in the world, and they like to let me know about it.
No, thank you much, I do not want to buy a Watchtower. Would you care to come in anyway though? We're about to sacrifice to Ramtha and your arrival may be taken as propicious.
Hey! Where ya goin'?
KFG
KFG
Re:Which was first? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not clear to me if this link [newadvent.org] is actually the official catechism of the Catholic church or just one person's analysis (and there's a lot near the end that I suspect most slashdotters will take issue with), but it gives an idea of how liberal the Catholic church's views on the subject are compared to say, fundementalist Christians.
Re:Which was first? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose I could also point out that in like manner the views of most Islamics differ markedly from those of the fundamentalist sort, and there are plenty of Reformed Jews in the world, and that much of what we think we know about these religions comes to us not from the main line of thought but from those that their own contemporaries thought of as "extremist religious whack jobs."
KFG
Re:Which was first? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Which was first? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't remember much of what I read about the origins of the Vatican Astronomer, tho; what was the reason for creating the position in the first place?
Christianity has fragmented so much that there are altogether too many whackies. Not really surprising, most authoritarian frames of mind tend to generate offshoots both more and less fanatical.
SB
Re:Which was first? (Score:5, Interesting)
One might also think on the fact that Galileo's findings - and he was vocal about them, as he should have been - were in direct conflict with the church teachings at the time; so there is no way he could have avoided censure of one kind or another. (A lesson that could also be applied to our times with different subjects and different players, nay?)
I was actually more impressed by the acknowledgement by the Catholic church that condoms were perhaps not a bad idea, after all. Of course if this had come before nasty STDs such as HIV were becoming a really serious and widespread medical problem, it might have been more of an indication of real tolerance rather than forced recognition of reality. But at least they went that far. Shows that someone there is thinking.
I'm not religious, tho raised so; but I'll admit that the Catholic church is one of the more enlightened in matters of science. I personally consider it penance for past transgressions.
SB
Re:Which was first? (Score:2)
Nope. Remember, Copernicus taught essentially the same thing, and was never condemned.
"I was actually more impressed by the acknowledgement by the Catholic church that condoms were perhaps not a bad idea, after all."
That would be news to me, if it were true. Got a reference?
Re:Which was first? (Score:2)
No, I don't.
But I distinctly remember, about 10 years ago or so, the Vatican issuing a statement that condoms might be a viable option in preventing STD propogation; I can't find a link to it, now.
Maybe I'm nut, but I don't think so, I remember discussing this with a lot of people on usenet.
Guess I need to play catchup with google; I don't think my memory is faulty, but it's happened before.
Copernicus didn't live in the same era
Cheers
Re:Which was first? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fundamentalist christians really are but minority in the world (or even amongst christians in general); many of them are loud and obnoxious in US, trying to leverage their zeal and energy to get more power to their "mission" (ie. pushing their ideals down others' throats)... but they are still minority, thank doG. :-)
Interestingly, though, there are plenty of less vocal christian fundamentalist groups, both in US and in european countries; folks like Amishes or luddite-like groups in scandinavia (don't own TVs, stay quite isolated from "non-believerers, but have no mission to convert "outsiders"). Those folks are generally easier to respect, because they walk the walk, without having to talk the talk; not vice versa.
Re:Which was first? (Score:3, Funny)
So I take it you're the agnostic and dyslexic insomniac I've been hearing about lately....
Re:Which was first? (Score:5, Interesting)
(and there's a lot near the end that I suspect most slashdotters will take issue with)
I realize I probably don't fit the profile of "most slashdotters", but frankly I don't see much of a problem here. I was raised Catholic, true, and have found myself doubting that faith as an agnostic seeker; but to be perfectly honest the link makes a compelling argument for the existence of [a/some/many/the one true/whatever] God.
It's probably not Catholic canon, to be sure, but the works cited in the article-- from Augustine to Darwin-- are enough for anyone to read for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Some people might say that it was merely luck that humans evolved in the way that they did-- that there was no divine force guiding the mutation and development of the unique characteristics that make a human a human. To this I say, "Well, if I have to prove to you there is a God, you have to prove to me there isn't." There is no evidence either for or against the existence of such a force-- certainly the odds are astronomical, but the greater the odds, the more likely it seems less of a coincidence and more of an intent.
Also, the bit about the soul simply not being possible in evolution also sits well with me. If evolution could have created humans exactly as they are now without the need for a creator's touch, what need would we have for the creator? It is my belief that when the creator (who or whatever that may be) saw that humanity was as developed as it was going to get naturally, this creator imbued the race with the spark of intellect-- a touch of the divine, if you will.
My beliefs are my own. You may or may not find truth in them, and frankly it's none of my business whether or not you do. I just thought I ought to thank you for giving me the opportunity to air that out a little bit. Oh, and I'll definitely be passing this link along to one of my old professors-- he's a Catholic priest and very much into this sort of thing.
Re:Which was first? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Which was first? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which was first? (Score:4, Insightful)
One can make an assertion that god exists.
One can make an assertion that god doesn't exist.
One can make neither assertion.
The third choice is the only one that does not require defense. As a christian, of almost any sort, you cannot avoid the burden of proof that is on you. Christians cannot claim the third choice. If you claim to see god in the trees and the beauty of the world, you are making the agnostic argument and you are a nonbeliever. If you pray, you are a believer. If you believe in the supernatural, e.g. the soul, you are a believer.
Believers, make an assertion that god exists. Thus, they have an obligation to prove god exists. Many, if not most nonbelievers either make no such assertion, or make a more restricted version of the assertion. A more restricted assertion for example might be "there is no omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent being". More importantly if one says "I do not believe in god", it is fair to be claiming the third assertion. One can fairly rephrase that "I make no assertion that god exists." Therefore, there is no defense of this position necessary.
Finally, proof is a strong word, and something no believer has come close to developing. Perhaps try developing some evidence first. Or, perhaps even just a simple observable test. Perhaps instead of trying to defend such a large assertion, why not start with a smaller one like one of these:
Can god hear prayers?
Does he have ears to hear them?
Does he hear all of them, or just some?
Do saints talk to god?
If so, does god need saints to talk to him?
Where is heaven?
Can god make a triangle with four sides?
yada yada yada
The point of course, is that these are not the assertions of some fringe element of christianity, but rather, the mainstream. I assert none of the above, if you assert any of it, then the burden of proof is on you.
plurvert
Re:Which was first? (Score:3, Interesting)
I do both. What does that make me?
God I can handle. Churches and religion I find too pushy, hypocritical and self-righteous.
Re:Which was first? (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't analyzed it that closely; ultimately I don't know what/who God is. It's beyond me. I just generally accept there's more in existence than I will ever comprehend. I see no point in deciding whether God is a being, concept or whatnot. I have yet to meet another person who I trust or believe in enough to tell me that.
I don't know who I'm praying to. Well, God, but who's God? Maybe my prayin
well. mmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess people are interpretating this according to their pre conceived "religiously held" beliefs.
Think on this, as an exercise taken from a generic macro evolutionist's standpoint. What are the odds of exact species arising at the same time on two different planets? Beyond practical chance? I think so. That indicates either poof simultaneous creation (or real dang close), or purposeful "seeding" or "cultivati
And nevermind 3 (Score:2)
Sure they may be aliens out there, but they're well, creations like a dog or a housefly. I'm sure those that seek a reason can find a way to separate man into something special, something unique above all other living beings in the Universe. It's not like the idea of saying "We're God's own/special/blessed people" is a new one.
Kjella
Panspermia (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Panspermia (Score:2)
Tip for future explorers if your on this mission: If you name is Kane, don't go into the ship.
Just take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Re:Panspermia (Score:2)
Pretty lucky bounce (Score:5, Funny)
Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, did you read the article?
"Controllers considered Bounce an odd find because it did not resemble any of the other rocks in the crater's vicinity -- nor did it resemble anything seen before on Mars, they said.
Rather more than that. Bounce's chemical composition exactly matches that of a meteorite that hit the ground in Shergotty, India, on Aug. 25, 1865.
Called the Shergotty meteorite -- and the source name for a class of meteorites called shergottites -- its chemical composition is a "matching fingerprint" to Bounce, said David Grinspoon, professor of planetary science at the University of Colorado in Boulder.
The resemblance helps confirm something meteorite specialists and planetary scientists have suspected for more than two decades but until now have been unable to prove: Micro-bubbles of gas trapped in dozens of meteorites found on Earth -- including Shergotty -- match the recipe of Martian atmosphere so closely that they must have originated on Mars.
"There is a striking similarity in spectra," said Christian Schroeder, a rover science-team collaborator from the University of Mainz in Germany, which supplied both Mars rovers with Moessbauer spectrometers -- exceedingly sensitive instruments for identifying chemical compositions."
Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point? (Score:5, Interesting)
The high proportion of pyroxene means Bounce not only is unlike any other rock studied by Opportunity or Spirit, but also is unlike the volcanic deposits mapped extensively around Mars...
Personally, I'm inclined to think that this means that Bounce probably did not originate on Mars. It sounds like Bounce is not like any other rock on Mars.
"Some of us think (Bounce) could have been ejected from this crater," Rogers said.
Craters are formed when meteorites smash into planets/moons/etc. To get a crater, you need something that came from another part of the solar system, if not another part of the galaxy. If Bounce came from this crater, as they hypothesize it did, then Bounce may or may not have come from another part of the galaxy, so this theory is starting to fit together well...
On a slightly related note, it should be much easier to find a meteorite on Mars than on Earth - Mars' atmosphere is much thinner than Earth's, so objects are less likely to burn up upon entry into the atmosphere. This explains why Mars has many more craters on it that Earth does. Also, I've read in several places (including a mention in the above quote) that many of the rocks on Mars are quite similar to each other. Thus, any different rocks will stand out rather a lot. This makes meteorite hunting fairly simple. Consequently, it would not surprise me at all if the rovers managed to find a meteorite on Mars.
I do not profess to be at all knowledgeable about Mars geology, but any fool can see that the author of the article knows even less. Not only did they dumb the finding down for laypeople, they have even added some inconsistencies:
Bounce's chemical composition exactly matches that of a meteorite that hit the ground in Shergotty, India, on Aug. 25, 1865.
A less-distinctively named shergottite, EETA79001, found in Antarctica in 1979, has a composition even closer to Bounce's.
I for one am disappointed by the lack of information in the article. Give me a real scientific article with real scientific facts, and hopefully we can then come to real, scientific conclusions. Until then, many different interpretations of this article are equally valid.
Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point? (Score:2)
Because that's not what they're trying to say. Bounce originated on Mars, despite being unlike other Martian rocks (which also makes it valuable in that light as wel).
Am I missing the point?
Yes, the point is that this rock probably came from the same impact crater that
Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point? (Score:2)
Re:What comes around goes around... (Score:3, Funny)
ba-dum-dum!
Thanks folks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal..I hear it's delicious.
Re:What comes around goes around... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What comes around goes around... (Score:5, Funny)
Bush will probably *cough* promise *cough* that in a month.
Hell, those WMD gotta be somewhere ?!
Re:What comes around goes around... (Score:3, Informative)
Shocked rock: A rock in which its particles have been accelerated to hi
Re:What comes around goes around... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it's much more likely for meteroites to make it from Mars to Earth than the other way round. Several orders of magnitude more likely. They need much more delta V, although that said a considerable amount is needed just to escape from Mars' gravity well. In other words it is possible but considerably less probable. Whether any microbes would survive an impact of sufficient energy, as well as the lon
Re:What comes around goes around... (Score:2)
Just in case (Score:5, Informative)
By Phil Berardelli
United Press International
Published 4/16/2004 6:07 PM
WASHINGTON, April 16 (UPI) -- Opportunity's phenomenal luck continues.
Not only did NASA's rover land smack-dab in the middle of a neatly excavated and navigable crater on Mars, where it promptly uncovered persuasive evidence that water once flowed across the red planet, and not only has it been performing nearly flawlessly since it touched down on Jan. 24. Now, it also, essentially, has stubbed its toe on a rock whose discovery portends cosmic implications.
A few days ago, on its slow roll across the Martian terrain at its landing site at Meridiani Planum, an iron-oxide-rich area near the planet's equator, Opportunity's controllers noticed an odd-looking, football-shaped rock lying in the red dust. They named the rock "Bounce," because the lander most likely hit it as it bounced along the surface, cushioned by its airbags, before coming to rest inside the little crater called Eagle.
Controllers considered Bounce an odd find because it did not resemble any of the other rocks in the crater's vicinity -- nor did it resemble anything seen before on Mars, they said.
So they ordered Opportunity to train its formidable instruments on the rock, including the tool NASA engineers affectionately called the "RAT," for rock abrasion tool, which grinds away surface impurities to expose the undisturbed, primordial composition below.
The results stunned the NASA team.
The main ingredient in Bounce is a volcanic mineral called pyroxene, said rover science team member Deanne Rogers, of Arizona State University in Tempe. The high proportion of pyroxene means Bounce not only is unlike any other rock studied by Opportunity or Spirit, but also is unlike the volcanic deposits mapped extensively around Mars by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor orbiter, Rogers said.
Bounce is a unique rock, and it has been sitting at Opportunity's feet.
"We think we have a rock similar to something found on Earth," said Benton Clark of Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Denver, a science-team member for the missions of both Opportunity and its twin, Spirit.
Rather more than that. Bounce's chemical composition exactly matches that of a meteorite that hit the ground in Shergotty, India, on Aug. 25, 1865.
Called the Shergotty meteorite -- and the source name for a class of meteorites called shergottites -- its chemical composition is a "matching fingerprint" to Bounce, said David Grinspoon, professor of planetary science at the University of Colorado in Boulder.
The resemblance helps confirm something meteorite specialists and planetary scientists have suspected for more than two decades but until now have been unable to prove: Micro-bubbles of gas trapped in dozens of meteorites found on Earth -- including Shergotty -- match the recipe of Martian atmosphere so closely that they must have originated on Mars.
"There is a striking similarity in spectra," said Christian Schroeder, a rover science-team collaborator from the University of Mainz in Germany, which supplied both Mars rovers with Moessbauer spectrometers -- exceedingly sensitive instruments for identifying chemical compositions.
A less-distinctively named shergottite, EETA79001, found in Antarctica in 1979, has a composition even closer to Bounce's.
As a result, NASA scientists are convinced Shergotty, EETA79001 and Bounce -- and maybe a couple dozen other Martian rocks that found their way to Earth -- were ejected from Mars by the impact of a large asteroid or comet.
The instruments aboard another orbiter, Mars Odyssey, suggest Bounce may have originated at an impact crater about 16 miles wide that lies about 31 miles southwest of Opportunity. The orbiter's images show some of the rocks thrown outward by the impact that formed the crater flew as far as the distance to the rover.
"Some of us think (Bounce) could have been ejected from this crater," Roge
is it really a rock? (Score:2, Funny)
do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!
Fascinating... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not usually much of one for news of outer space, but this particular research I find really interesting. Of course it would be interesting to know if life on Earth evolved from organisms in a Meteorite, or simultaneously evolved and was just cross-pollinated.
The conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts have held beliefs in life starting from anywhere from a single-celled organism on a meteorite, to outright terraforming for a long time.
As for life on Mars... I watched a really good documentary about the moon the other day, which basically explained that without the moon -- a single moon -- to help stabilize our planet, we probably wouldn't have ever been here. It will be interesting to see if life evolved on Mars, perhaps conditions were favourable in the past. Apparently since it has multiple small moons, it wobbles on its axis, which makes the climate really unstable over very long periods of times. Or, that was the gist of it.
This sort of thing is exciting again, since they're got more than just grainy pics giving the illusion of human faces in Cydonia. =)
Re:Fascinating... (Score:2)
Mars n
Re:Fascinating... (Score:2)
Maybe
Re:Fascinating... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, well, they do that. My wonder about those nuts is why it's OK for life to have evolved elsewhere, then came here, but not to have evolved here? Some basic fear of not being devine, I guess.
Conclusive Possibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm just unfamiliar with the lingo being used here, but the words conclusive and possibility don't quite seem to make sense when both used in reference to the same evidence.
Re:Conclusive Possibility? (Score:2)
Ok there are two things to prove, A and B. Evidence C is conclusive evidence that A happened but also might have caused C.
The rock was conclusive evidence of martian meteorites on earth, which possibly led to cross-seeding.
Think of it this way, someone breaks into a store, shoots a clerk in the leg, and steals all the m
A little ahead of things? (Score:5, Informative)
This is not supported by any facts and is pure speculation. It doesn't even qualify as junk science.
The authors should wait until we get some data back from Mars confirming that life was even present there before publishing these kind of claims.
Re:A little ahead of things? (Score:4, Interesting)
And we know that organisms can survive in open space: the found some still-viable critters on one of the Ranger spacecraft when an Apollo mission brought some bits back from the Moon.
Re:A little ahead of things? (Score:4, Interesting)
And of course, there's also the bacterium that withstands high doses of radiation, Deinococcus radiodurans. NASA's been looking at it, apparently:
"Meet Conan the Bacterium" [nasa.gov]
Re:A little ahead of things? (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't seem to have been insulation as foam inside a TV camera [usra.edu]. While that is indeed sheltered somewhat, it'd be useful to know how dense and thick the foam was. A small peice of light foam isn't going to block a lot of radiation. I've certainly never heard anyone argue that it would do so, although some do claim that the bacteria contaiminated the sample after it arrived back on Earth.
Either way, while I don't think it proves that the little buggers can survive in space, it's reason to consider th
Re:A little ahead of things? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A little ahead of things? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A little ahead of things? (Score:2)
It is easy to tell if material has been shocked (accelerated) by looking at the crystal structure in a microscope. As you might expect, many meteorites show clear evidence of being very roughly treated, equivalent to many thousands of g's, which no life can survive.
However, some of the Martian meteorites have hardly been shocked at all, much less melted, in their trip from Mars to Earth.
This seemed very surprising, so there has been a lot of study of
"identical" fingerprint, then a better match? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that the article first states that Shergotty and Bounce match like a fingerprint, only to go on saying they found a better match somewhere else leads me to think more in the lines of the rocks being "extremely close" rather than "identical".
It is also probably likely that a meteorite on its way to either planet could shed rock and ice from its tail on the one before crashing into the other, thereby elimiting any "direct" contact between earth and mars.
Still waiting for the martians to make contact...
Penhead
Possibly conclusively evident trueisms (Score:4, Insightful)
Does conclusive evidence of a possibility make it true?
Re:Possibly conclusively evident trueisms (Score:2, Insightful)
Sensationalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sensationalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Article quote: The way Opportunity's luck has been going, it would not be surprising to learn the rover has detected Martian microbes.
Although it's not equipped to [nasa.gov], like the Viking landers were. Opportunity is a geological explorer, not a biological one.
SB
Re:Sensationalism (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you! This is a very important point.
Having searched for shergottite meteorite signatures using orbital data from Mars (no luck yet), and being a close colleague of many of the MER science team members, I can confirm that NO ONE on the MER team is suggesting anything about life on Mars or cross-contamination based on this week's (or any other week's) results.
Although one of the instrument teams (Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer - APXS) is suggesting that Meridiani could be the source region of
Re:Sensationalism (Score:2)
Second, I was actually taking an issue with the slashdot posting, which muddles the whole issue by leaving out the critical phrase in the quote, "So far, no one has broached the bigger implication:" and makes it seem like the scientists ARE saying this provides conclusive evidence.
So no. I d
Bounce may be the first recorded evidence... (Score:4, Funny)
Cross seeding (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody tell the KKK or they'll start showing up at NASA press conferences to protest. Those guys have way too much time on their hands.
Hope influencing science (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hope influencing science (Score:2)
Because a galaxy who's life spawned by common seeds, i.e. trans stellar mater and cross planet pollenization makes it a hell of alot easer for sci-fi writers to justify the fact that all aliens are somewhat humanoid in appearence.
Well, THAT explains why... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, THAT explains why... (Score:4, Funny)
now NASA has admitted that... (Score:5, Funny)
You mean... (Score:4, Funny)
Nostalgia (Score:5, Funny)
Diego
Familiar breed of rock found on Mars (Score:4, Funny)
Pet rocks are the primitive ancestors of modern pseudo-pets such as tamagotchi and Aibo.
This has led some scientists to suggest that the curious human habit of creating emotional attachments to purposeless inanimate objects may actually be extraterrestrial in origin.
Re:Familiar breed of rock found on Mars (Score:3, Funny)
but it was 1975 apparently.
Pet Rocks were a 1975 fad originated in California by salesman, Gary Dahl.
http://www.virtualpet.com/vp/farm/petrock/petro
Bet the creationists LOVE this one (Score:5, Interesting)
Great. I keep hoping that we'll find definitive proof of abiogenesis occuring sponteaneously on another planet, and now look what the gods of chaos have given us: a huge, obvous excuse to give to the creationists. I'm sure we'll see this one crop up on the 700 Club if-and-when they ever find 100%-sure-fire-can't argue-with-that proof that life existed on Mars.
"But God planted the seeds of life in Eden, and he did smith the earth with a big rock, and it did spew forth flotsam into the universe, and it was good."
Grrr.
Re:Bet the creationists LOVE this one (Score:2)
Hoagland Was Right! Holy S#$!! (Score:4, Funny)
Richard C. Hoagland has been saying this for years, and to think I didn't pay attention just because he's a conspiracy theorist. He's been pounding on and on about how life here came from Mars. And now real evidence emerges that says that might actually be true -- it's living science fiction. See Hoagland's stuff at Enterprise Mission [enterprisemission.com].
Holy sh#&!!
Re:Hoagland Was Right! Holy S#$!! (Score:4, Informative)
(b) The Bounce discoveries do not necessarily support the conclusion that life orginated on Mars and came to Earth. All they do is further support the notion that some of the meterorites striking Earth have a Martian origin. Whether or not those meteorites carried biological payloads is a whole different question.
We're all aliens? (Score:2, Funny)
Certainly makes me think. Somewhere, Darwin is laughing...
Conclusive evidence of a possibility? (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, that sure says a lot.
Ugh (Score:2)
This may be redundant, but find all the evidence you want of cross seeding and you still have the question as to where that life came from and how it was created.
Chicken or egg, you still have to wonder what the hell was before that.
1 in ? (Score:4, Insightful)
What are the chances that life could survive an impact big enough to expel this material? imagine the size of such an impact on earth. Between the impact's turbulence (I speculate a mix of vaccum, shock waves and super hot atmosphere - not to mention lots of molten stuff) wouldn't the journey through space be even more harrowing?
Then the re-entry on the destination, that can't be a walk in the park.
The common source? (Score:4, Interesting)
Cross-Seeding? (Score:2)
What kind of language is that??? (Score:3, Interesting)
"So far, no one has broached the bigger implication: Bounce provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding."
How is that supposed to be read -- "...provides conclusive evidence ... of the possibility of cross-seeding"? How can anything provide a conclusive evidence of a possibility of such a thing? It demonstrates one of _prerequisites_ for cross-seeding, but the _possibility_ of cross-seeding does not depend only on the fact that the matter of Martian origin could reach Earth.
This is not the same as making the hypothesis of cross-seeding more plausible (or "possible" as in "possible to consider") -- ceratinly the discovery of matching materials on two planets does that, but "conclusive evidence" of the possibility of cross-seeding will only appear when organic matter similar to Earth organism will be found on Mars or meteorites -- it's beyond silly to call cross-seeding "possible" if there is nothing to cross-seed with.
In fact, this rock isn't even a proof that the origin of the meteorite is Martian -- it doesn't look like other rocks on Mars, so it may be produced by volcanic activity on Mars, or it may be from somewhere else. If anything, it's a good reason to research the Martian "geology", and maybe check the chemical composition of its moons.
Re:now the question is (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:now the question is (Score:2, Informative)
Re:now the question is (Score:5, Informative)