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

From: mark ford <markf_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon Mar 21 13:24:53 2005
Message-ID: <6CE3EEEFE92F4B4085B0E086B2941B31244D22_at_s-southern01.s-southern.com>

I think the bio-skeptics (like me) will wake up and say 'yes there's
life! - when:

A)We see it

B)someone presents evidence of direct life (not just a cloud of methane)
I mean [actual] evidence, collected and presented without any 'funding
bias', or vested interest, (like justifying future space programs to
congress.)

It all sounds an awful lot like they have a theory and are desperately
trying to find shreds of evidence to prove it rather than keeping an
open mind and seeing what appears. The wrong way to do science.

Personally I rekon Mars is about the least likely place for life, but
who knows. Thing is, life on earth leaves us clues all over the place,
surely we would have detected life on Mars by know. Personally I'd have
thought 'Titan the flying chemistry set, would be the best bet. Least it
has an ATMOSPHERE!


Best
Mark Ford



-----Original Message-----
From: David Freeman [mailto:dfreeman_at_fascination.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:46 PM
To: Francis Graham
Cc: meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Quarter of Mars Scientists atEuropean
MeetingBelieve Life Possible on Mars

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
>
>


______________________________________________
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Wed 02 Mar 2005 08:23:16 AM PST