Building Blocks of Life Found on Mars

[Despotes]

Eigenbrode explained that the organic molecules found on Mars are not specific evidence of life. "They could have come from things that are non-biological," she said.
Much ado about nothing.

 

[vegeta535]

You know this how?
How many planets other than this one have YOU personally visited, viewed their electromagnetic emissions, even LOOKED at through a telescope?
Oh, that's right, none.
Please tell me why we should take your word as gospel again?

I believe there is alien life out there but not to the extent like we see in the movies. Some more advanced and some less. None with the ability to easily traverse the universe. I just don't believe it is physically possible to travel such great distances in a reasonable time.

 

[Dr. Righteous]

Another thing; this BS is why the space program a complete joke now and why private enterprise is having to take it over.
NASA and politicians have lost all interest in exploration and exploiting the findings in space for the betterment of mankind.
It is now a search for little green men. Organic molecules= evidence of life. Complete BS. That is like finding iron ore and saying that equals a Buick Skylark.

 

[Draax]

Another thing; this BS is why the space program a complete joke now and why private enterprise is having to take it over.
NASA and politicians have lost all interest in exploration and exploiting the findings in space for the betterment of mankind.
It is now a search for little green men. Organic molecules= evidence of life. Complete BS. That is like finding iron ore and saying that equals a Buick Skylark.

What the actual ...

 

[katanaD]

What life do you know of that exists outside of earth?

 

[Mega6]

Didn't Viking in 1970s find organic molecules?

You know this how?

God Told Him?

 

[Dan_D]

From scientists at NASA whose job it is to find signs of life out there. If you believe that the universe was created by the Big Bang or something similar, and you calculate the growth of the Universe out from the center, it stands to reason that there are certain times in the Universe's life that life is the most probable, and that period slowly spreads out. So that things further out may not have gone through that transition period yet, while areas closer to the center may have had ones that came and gone. Given the age of the Universe and how it spreads and the tremendous amount of things that have to go right and continue to go right for life to exist and mature, the likelihood of 2 sentient species being alive at the same time is pretty small. Heck the chance of life itself is incredibly small. So when you put the chances of life and then match it up with the expansion periods of the Universe, it becomes increasingly less likely that 2 sentient species will actually exist at the same time. SW, ST, and ME all have many sentient species currently alive and trading with one another. That is incredibly unlikely. Even if there were other sentient species currently alive in the universe, the likelihood of them being close enough even with FTL to trade is highly doubtful.

First off, there is a lot we still don't know. There are sufficient gaps in our understanding of how life forms and evolves that I believe any statements on that matter are still largely speculative even if there is a certain amount of "educated guesswork" in those statements.

Go ahead and link the so called NASA scientists who say that. I'm betting your missing context and even if you aren't, I'll wager that this opinion isn't shared by all in the scientific community. There isn't enough data to make real accurate and testable predictions about how common life is in the universe. All we are reasonably sure of is that there isn't any close to us at a similar level of technology. We haven't been able to probe any exoplanets in an effort to learn whether or not the conditions for supporting life are truly rare or not. All we can do is rule out certain exoplanets based on their proximity to a star. The further out we look the harder it gets to gain accurate information. Finding planetary bodies near a star isn't nearly as easy as simply finding stars.

Conditions in solar systems isn't static. We tend to think it is based on the length of time scales but the truth is that external factors could bring a planet into habitability or render it inhabitable at various points. You can't simply say that every planet behind this point in space is x amount of years old and life can't be there.

Didn't Viking in 1970s find organic molecules?

God Told Him?

There is one particular scientist who designed a test for the Viking probe who said that his test showed conclusive evidence that organic life exists on Mars, or did at one point. However, it wasn't the only test that was conducted to determine whether or not there was life on Mars. A separate test designed by a different scientist concluded that there wasn't life on the planet according to his test.

The one who's test did verify there was organic life on Mars claims the test that disputes his result isn't as sensitive and those results should be discarded. There is also some controversy over a martian meteorite that hit Earth that showed some evidence for possible microbial life. As I understand it, the vast majority of scientists who have looked at the data in both cases says there isn't life on Mars, or at least, no conclusive evidence of it. The guy who designed the test that said there was life on Mars, appears on an episode of Ancient Aliens and virtually everything said on that show is an outright lie. At best, its twisted to suit the narrative the show presents. Even when credible people appear on the show, their interviews are edited to suit that same narrative.

Anything that comes from that show needs to be fact checked. A few minutes on Google will normally tell the same story. The information presented is either a gross misrepresentation of actual facts or outright lies.

 

[bobdabilder]

Tina turner just found oil on uranus.....

A new study released by NASA reveals that there are large organic molecules on Mars. This data was gathered by the Curiosity rover in Mars's Gale Crater where it found the 3.5B year old molecules. These results don't mean there was life on Mars, but they do show where more advanced missions might possibly find that smoking gun. We'll see how it goes with future missions and hopefully we'll be able to once and for all confirm whether life existed on Mars. Thanks cageymaru.

To get firmer answers, researchers will need to get equipment to Mars that’s sensitive enough to detect life’s thumb on the chemical scales. On Earth, life makes more methane and less of the gas ethane than non-living reactions do. If researchers saw this signature on Mars, the case for life would get stronger.

 

[Bawjaws]

Another thing; this BS is why the space program a complete joke now and why private enterprise is having to take it over.
NASA and politicians have lost all interest in exploration and exploiting the findings in space for the betterment of mankind.
It is now a search for little green men. Organic molecules= evidence of life. Complete BS. That is like finding iron ore and saying that equals a Buick Skylark.

This seems like a take so hot it would incinerate any signs of life of this planet, or anywhere else in the solar system.

 

[Mega6]

Yes Dan, I despise shows like "Ancient Aliens" spreading fiction like fact to the twisted, gullible masses. More mis-information now than ever. Presence of organic molecules and matter is not evidence of life itself. However, to positively conclude that there is no life anywhere else knowing the expanse of the universe is naive at best and patronizing to say the least.

 

[NoOther]

Go ahead and link the so called NASA scientists who say that.

Ask and you shall receive.

 

[_l_]

"Building Blocks of Life Found on Mars"

Gee, I wonder who created those 'building blocks' and put them there? Remember when you were a very small child and dad/mom gave you building blocks to play with? The blocks you played with DIDN'T JUST HAPPEN into existence

 

[Bawjaws]

"Building Blocks of Life Found on Mars"

Gee, I wonder who created those 'building blocks' and put them there? Remember when you were a very small child and dad/mom gave you building blocks to play with? The blocks you played with DIDN'T JUST HAPPEN into existence

MIND BLOWN

 

[Dan_D]

Ask and you shall receive.

That was an interesting read, but I have a different takeaway from it than you do. This part of the article largely sums up what to expect: "And it shows that unless the odds of advanced life evolving on a habitable planet are astonishingly low, then human kind is not the universe’s first technological, or advanced, civilization." The problem is that we don't really know how common the evolution of sapient life is. We only have a sample of 1 that's confirmed. Everywhere else, we can only speculate when we find an exoplanet that's close enough to its star for our kind of life to form. Whether or not water exists on those worlds is unknown. We can calculate the approximate density of those worlds as well as orbital characteristics but as we found with Pluto, our understanding of a planet can change radically when we inspect it up close.

I found nothing concrete in that article to say with certainty that the probability of life on other planets is slim to none during this time period in which our civilization exists. The article even points out that we have no idea how long an advanced civilization can last. We have no idea how long it takes to get to a point where a culture is significantly advanced enough to reach a state where it can preserve itself indefinitely. Again, our sample size is too limited to know. We can't even tell how common bacteria or other simple life forms are in the galaxy or universe.

As is the case with Drake's equation, it was founded on an estimate of what we knew at the time. Drake's equation guessed that for each star a certain amount of planets were common and that if this held true then there would be a high chance for life out there even if it's chances of getting started on any given world were small. Since then we've learned that many systems are binary and lack planets or planets that could support life which brought that equation into serious doubt. However, do not have enough information to say with any real certainty that there are no other civilizations as advanced as ours out there at this time.

This part was particularly interesting: "One in 10 billion trillion is incredibly small,” says Frank. “To me, this implies that other intelligent, technology producing species very likely have evolved before us. Think of it this way. Before our result you’d be considered a pessimist if you imagined the probability of evolving a civilization on a habitable planet were, say, one in a trillion. But even that guess, one chance in a trillion, implies that what has happened here on Earth with humanity has in fact happened about a 10 billion other times over cosmic history!” So, the article concludes that civilizations have likely occurred during the history of the universe. It goes on to say that we are likely alone right now, but if the "math" they used makes the previous statement, then all a civilization would have to do is reach a point where its sophisticated enough to preserve itself nearly indefinitely.

The math is interesting, but it's hardly conclusive. We still don't have any idea how many exoplanets are really out there. Without knowing that or how rare sapient life is or isn't, its hard to call this solid proof of what your saying. I'll give you this, it's a solid read and thought provoking, but again there is still too much we don't know for certain to call that proof anything more concrete than the Drake equation which was obviously flawed to start. At least in hindsight.

 

[NoOther]

The math is interesting, but it's hardly conclusive. We still don't have any idea how many exoplanets are really out there. Without knowing that or how rare sapient life is or isn't, its hard to call this solid proof of what your saying. I'll give you this, it's a solid read and thought provoking, but again there is still too much we don't know for certain to call that proof anything more concrete than the Drake equation which was obviously flawed to start. At least in hindsight.

As for the math, much of the astrophysical science we use today is based on math that is not conclusive. But it definitely does not currently support the notion of civilizations existing at the same time within reach.

“The universe is more than 13 billion years old,” said Sullivan. “That means that even if there have been a thousand civilizations in our own galaxy, if they live only as long as we have been around—roughly ten thousand years—then all of them are likely already extinct. And others won’t evolve until we are long gone. For us to have much chance of success in finding another "contemporary" active technological civilization, on average they must last much longer than our present lifetime.”

“Given the vast distances between stars and the fixed speed of light we might never really be able to have a conversation with another civilization anyway,” said Frank. “If they were 20,000 light years away then every exchange would take 40,000 years to go back and forth.”

In other words, the chance for another contemporary active technological civilization within reach is astronomically low.

 

[Dan_D]

As for the math, much of the astrophysical science we use today is based on math that is not conclusive. But it definitely does not currently support the notion of civilizations existing at the same time within reach.

Like I said, hardly conclusive.

In other words, the chance for another contemporary active technological civilization within reach is astronomically low.

As I said, we don't have enough information to really make this conclusion. The article you linked takes some information and uses some math to draw some conclusions, but the data the math is based on is almost certainly going to change as we learn more about the universe. While math exercises to determine answers to these questions is fun, and even somewhat useful I think its safe to say that this will need constant re-evaluation.

Also, its important to note that these weren't NASA scientists. Woodruff Sullivan is involved with SETI, and he's a university professor, but not a NASA employed scientist. Adam Frank is also a university professor. Neither of their Wiki pages shows any direct involvement with NASA.

 

[NoOther]

Like I said, hardly conclusive.



As I said, we don't have enough information to really make this conclusion. The article you linked takes some information and uses some math to draw some conclusions, but the data the math is based on is almost certainly going to change as we learn more about the universe. While math exercises to determine answers to these questions is fun, and even somewhat useful I think its safe to say that this will need constant re-evaluation.

Also, its important to note that these weren't NASA scientists. Woodruff Sullivan is involved with SETI, and he's a university professor, but not a NASA employed scientist. Adam Frank is also a university professor. Neither of their Wiki pages shows any direct involvement with NASA.

How to be clear about this...let me see. First, there is actual equations, science and research to suggest what is in this article. Second, it was posted on NASA's own site, which means NASA gave it credence. Third, there are actually not that many people that work directly for NASA, mostly you have people that do contract work for NASA. You are arguing semantics at this point and have zero science to back up what you seem to be suggesting. I am not sure why you are being so combative about the actual science that has been done on this.

 

[Dan_D]

How to be clear about this...let me see. First, there is actual equations, science and research to suggest what is in this article. Second, it was posted on NASA's own site, which means NASA gave it credence. Third, there are actually not that many people that work directly for NASA, mostly you have people that do contract work for NASA. You are arguing semantics at this point and have zero science to back up what you seem to be suggesting. I am not sure why you are being so combative about the actual science that has been done on this.

I'm not being combative. I simply didn't agree with the opinion expressed in your post or the conclusions reached by the researchers in the article you linked. You also stated that these were NASA scientists and there is no direct correlation with NASA. They are scientists, yes. So that doesn't really matter, but I'm simply pointing out that these weren't NASA scientists whether they posted the article on the NASA site or not. You used them as an example of NASA scientists and I have found no connection between the two other than the posting of the article on the site. Granted, this matters very little but you brought up the NASA connection in the first place.

Beyond that, I don't agree with your post or the conclusions reached by the researchers because math done based on incomplete data will not reach the correct conclusion. At the time it was publicized the Drake equation made a lot of sense. Before we knew how many exoplanets there were, or how rare they were, it made sense. It was an equation based on conjecture. Now we know that it's not accurate. I suspect the same thing will happen with the conclusions drawn by the article in question. Whether we stick with our galaxy alone or the universe as a whole, until we know how many exoplanets there truly are within a habitable range, or how common the formation of life truly is, the math is academic and its nothing more than that.

I'm not arguing that the math is wrong. I'm arguing that the data that its based on is incomplete. It's conjectural. Therefore the conclusion is conjectural. I'm not a scientist so please, explain to me how I'm wrong. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the article's content.

 

[NoOther]

I'm not being combative. I simply didn't agree with the opinion expressed in your post or the conclusions reached by the researchers in the article you linked. You also stated that these were NASA scientists and there is no direct correlation with NASA. They are scientists, yes. So that doesn't really matter, but I'm simply pointing out that these weren't NASA scientists whether they posted the article on the NASA site or not. You used them as an example of NASA scientists and I have found no connection between the two other than the posting of the article on the site. Granted, this matters very little but you brought up the NASA connection in the first place.

You say you are not being combative, but the language you use differs from that statement. You started off saying "so called" NASA scientists. I provided a link. Then you wanted to argue over whether they were "NASA" scientists at all. I mean, what does it matter? They are the foremost scientists in the search for intelligent life in the universe at the moment. Then you want to argue with their conclusions and with the theories out there on potential life, which is based off the science we have. Then you try to make it sound like unsubstantial pseudoscience. All the while you don't provide any valid scientific alternative with any researched theory in its place.

These were scientists who had worked with NASA before. NASA worked with the SETI program and still works with them from time to time. I first learned of the Drake equation from scientists at NASA. I still keep in touch with a number of people from NASA. You asked for a link, I provided one with the most current information. It also came right from a NASA website where they keep tracking information about life in the universe.

You may disagree all you want, but that is the most current and up to date information we have about potential life. There is no other equations out there that I know of at the moment. So I am basing my information on the science that is actually provided.

 

[Dan_D]

You say you are not being combative, but the language you use differs from that statement. You started off saying "so called" NASA scientists. I provided a link. Then you wanted to argue over whether they were "NASA" scientists at all. I mean, what does it matter?

It doesn't matter. Let's move on.

They are the foremost scientists in the search for intelligent life in the universe at the moment. Then you want to argue with their conclusions and with the theories out there on potential life, which is based off the science we have. Then you try to make it sound like unsubstantial pseudoscience. All the while you don't provide any valid scientific alternative with any researched theory in its place.

Based on my understanding of current astronomical information we have, their math is based on incomplete data. I understand that this information is based on what we have now and I'm not disputing the math. Only the conclusion it makes. I don't need to provide an alternative theory because I'm not making a claim. Those scientists are making a claim that we may be the only sapient life in the universe, and therefore the burden of proof is on them. Not me. I don't think this meets that burden. The math looks good as best as I can understand it. However, it's a hypothesis that can't be tested right now and it's based on incomplete data. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make my position than that. I'm not a scientist and I agree that I can certainly be wrong here, but as I understand the information you linked, it's not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination. The conclusions drawn in that article could in fact turn out to be true as our understanding of the universe increases.

These were scientists who had worked with NASA before. NASA worked with the SETI program and still works with them from time to time. I first learned of the Drake equation from scientists at NASA. I still keep in touch with a number of people from NASA. You asked for a link, I provided one with the most current information. It also came right from a NASA website where they keep tracking information about life in the universe.

You may disagree all you want, but that is the most current and up to date information we have about potential life. There is no other equations out there that I know of at the moment. So I am basing my information on the science that is actually provided.

OK, that's fine. I already conceded that the connection to NASA isn't all that important. You brought it up, I didn't see the link. Now you've provided additional context. So again, let's move on. As for the rest, I disagree with the conclusion. I've told you why. I don't think there is anything more to say on the subject. Its an opinion and nothing more than that.