[meteorite-list] Quarter of Mars Scientists at European MeetingBelieve Life Possible on Mars

From: David Freeman <dfreeman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon Mar 21 13:24:53 2005
Message-ID: <4224FECE.2090506_at_fascination.com>

Dear Francis, List;
And I follow this thread by asking
"Dear Great God of the universe, please let there be banded irons and
stromatolites on Mars".
Humbledave F.
ebay user ID mjwy

Francis Graham wrote:

>--- Marc Fries <m.fries_at_gl.ciw.edu> wrote:
>
>>Howdy
>>
>
> A friendly hello to all concerned with this
>perplexing issue,
>
>> Keep me off that list, even if the NASA
>>Astrobiology Institute is
>>paying my bills nowadays. Methane can be produced
>>by geology,
>>formaldehyde is a natural by-product of methane in
>>Mars' viciously
>>oxidizing environment, and hexaoctahedral magnetite
>>can be produced
>>abiotically.
>>
>
>
> All correct, I can't argue. But the argument runs
>that these events are more-or-less independent
>abiotically (except for the formaldehyde-methane link)
>, and not so if biology is involved, so the biological
>origin is increasingly more probable. Keep in mind
>that was McKay et al's argument in ALH 84001: these
>things are all in the same rock, and their association
>would be improbable if they were abiotic, although
>each might be produced somehow abiotically. The
>counter to that was: well, we have only one rock as an
>example.
> My remarks meant to look to the future of this
>issue.
> More news came out in today's Aviation Week. It
>turns out, according to the article, that Elysium
>seems to be an ice lake the size of the North Sea on
>Mars, covered by volcanic ash. (Elysium is visible as
>an albedo feature from Earth ) And they report the
>methane is enhanced over it, exactly as it should be
>if biology in the underlying ground water were a
>factor, but only coincidentally if geology were.
>
>>This is
>>a serious question with a thousand important
>>implications, and We can't
>>accept a partial answer or rushed judgement to it
>>either way.
>>
>
> I could not agree more that a healthy scientific
>skepticism is in order here. But, as future evidence
>comes in, should we cling to nonbiological
>interpretations with desparation? What is the criteria
>for saying, "Gee. It sure looks like Mars has or had
>some sort of biology." ? If it is required that all
>possible nonbiological ad-hoc explanations be
>comprehensively disproven then it may take some time
>to get there. Is that what you are saying?
> It would be OK to say that, IF the implications of
>even a tentative conclusion about life on Mars (and
>all science is tentative) were so abhorrent that we
>must not embrace it unless forced to. Are the
>implications of saying microbiotic life is probable on
>Mars so abhorrent that we must not think it unless
>forced to? And why?
> You may well be correct that we may not be to the
>point yet of saying life exists or existed on Mars.
>But: the news comes in as you say, daily (and faster
>than the journals can print it) so at what level do we
>say so? What are the lines to be crossed? And: can we
>not now today speak of at least probabilities? You
>must admit, the probabilities look better and better,
>and as the probability of biology increases, things
>begin to fit together, and the probability of a
>lifeless contrary Mars decreases.
> True, I am a little troubled by some things on a
>biological Mars model that don't quite fit, but they
>can be explained by a biology on Mars that is barely
>hanging on, as did Earth's biology during some of the
>equator-to-pole freezes of our own Archaean and
>Proterozoic times. Except on Mars it has been so for
>billions of years.
> Of course, if Mars had anything like a visible
>biosphere above the surface this issue would not even
>be here. We are really indirectly looking into dark
>water-filled crevices below the cryosphere with
>sniffing instruments. We can indeed reach tentative
>conclusions in science by indirect evidence. If Mars'
>deep life is chemosynthetic in crevices underground,
>the kind of absolute solid direct proof many desire
>may not be forthcoming ever at all, and the indirect
>evidence may be it.
> I can hardly wait to see the next Division of
>Planetary Science meeting papers.
>
>Francis Graham
>
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
>http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
Received on Tue 01 Mar 2005 06:46:22 PM PST