Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    18 Dec '09 16:08
    http://www.physorg.com/news180264793.html

    It has been 13 years since the original analysis suggested they could not determine if the nanomagnetite crystals were evidence of life based activity, the same thing on earth is considered solid evidence of fossil life. This new work uses techniques unavailable way back in '96 and has, if confirmed, falsified the hypothesis that the magnetite was formed by the thermal decomposition of carbonates, the only leading non-life process known to produce such features. By falsifying that hypothesis, the only other hypothesis is biologic! So now the ball is in the court of the non-life dudes to fix their theories, otherwise the evidence will lean bigtime towards biological processes.
  2. 18 Dec '09 17:56
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.physorg.com/news180264793.html

    It has been 13 years since the original analysis suggested they could not determine if the nanomagnetite crystals were evidence of life based activity, the same thing on earth is considered solid evidence of fossil life. This new work uses techniques unavailable way back in '96 and has, if confirmed, falsified th ...[text shortened]... s to fix their theories, otherwise the evidence will lean bigtime towards biological processes.
    Would we like the micro structures in the martian stone to be an origin of life, or do we want it to be of some other origin?
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    155 years
    19 Dec '09 04:15
    The Martians are here at last?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMdC45S79uQ&feature=PlayList&p=6FC8AA20AAB580BF&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=61
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    19 Dec '09 10:20
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Would we like the micro structures in the martian stone to be an origin of life, or do we want it to be of some other origin?
    As far as origins go, it could be either way. Statistically speaking, there would be a lot more material hit Mars from Earth than the other way round, so in my mind the origin would have been here and meteorites from Earth jump starting life on Mars and then some of it comes back to Earth, like the Antarctica sample generating so much controversy. Thinking about the statistical situation again, though, now not so sure which planet would hit which the most, smaller planet getting whacked would have a lower escape velocity and the surface area of Earth would be larger, not so sure now.
    Still up in the air which planet could have seeded which I guess. That is assuming the seeding theory is correct. We won't know the answer to that one till a sample returns to Earth with martian life on it. Even then we might not be able to say definitively because life may have formed in space and then deposited on BOTH planets and would then have fundamental similarities, DNA, RNA and so forth. I think it could only be proven if life on Mars were found and a large difference in age of the beginnings of life there or the life form was the opposite chirality or a different physical rendition of the Mars equivalent of DNA. If that were the case then all bets are off as far as origins go, each planet to itself, but still leading to life, would make for an interesting comparison to the possibility of life being discovered on Europa or Titan, or other places in the solar system. It's going to be an exciting time when we finally get some of those answers. I hope it puts all the religious so-called arguments to rest!
  5. 19 Dec '09 11:31
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    As far as origins go, it could be either way. Statistically speaking, there would be a lot more material hit Mars from Earth than the other way round, so in my mind the origin would have been here and meteorites from Earth jump starting life on Mars and then some of it comes back to Earth, like the Antarctica sample generating so much controversy. Thinking ...[text shortened]... nally get some of those answers. I hope it puts all the religious so-called arguments to rest!
    To answer my own question: Yes I would like it to be fossilized martain life. But I don't believe it. Science about this stone would be far more interesting if it was an evidence of a former martian bacteria.

    However, I don't like the idea that earthly life has its origin from Mars.
  6. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    19 Dec '09 20:15
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    To answer my own question: Yes I would like it to be fossilized martain life. But I don't believe it. Science about this stone would be far more interesting if it was an evidence of a former martian bacteria.

    However, I don't like the idea that earthly life has its origin from Mars.
    You don't like an idea? It's only a hypothesis ATT anyway. What's the difference? Through whatever it was that happened 4 odd billion years ago, things developed that has brought us to this point in time and civilization. What is your objection to the idea we could have come from Mars? What dif does it make? Personally, I think the Fred Hoyle theory makes sense to me, that life developed in interstellar clouds, maybe close to some star or other during the collapse stage of a nebula where earlier novae seeded the clouds with heavy metals and the cloud got dense enough and close enough to a star that bacteria started there and the cloud seeded life in star systems many light years apart. I think if and when we ever get interstellar probes, we will find the origins of life to be interstellar. Wouldn't THAT throw a monkey wrench into christians, eh. Gladdens the heart
  7. 19 Dec '09 21:13
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You don't like an idea? It's only a hypothesis ATT anyway. What's the difference? Through whatever it was that happened 4 odd billion years ago, things developed that has brought us to this point in time and civilization. What is your objection to the idea we could have come from Mars? What dif does it make? Personally, I think the Fred Hoyle theory makes s ...[text shortened]... interstellar. Wouldn't THAT throw a monkey wrench into christians, eh. Gladdens the heart
    I just don't like the idea, that's all, nothing more.
  8. 20 Dec '09 15:09
    I heard it cautioned by one scientist that microsopic life could blow OFF the upper atmosphere of earth, blow through outer space and conceivably be found latter in fossilized form on Mars.

    In that case the life probably originated on earth and was blown off by solar winds in the high stratos sphere. Discovering it then on Mars would be misleading.

    Just a cautionary note someone suggested.
  9. 20 Dec '09 15:14
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I just don't like the idea, that's all, nothing more.
    Is it any more distasteful than humans once being apes swinging in trees ?

    Hey, if you've come that far, a little Martian ancestry can't hurt, eh?
  10. 20 Dec '09 19:27
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Is it any more distasteful than humans once being apes swinging in trees ?

    Hey, if you've come that far, a little Martian ancestry can't hurt, eh?
    I never said distasteful, nor do I agree that this is what I feel.

    If you try to see everything in black or white, then I have to correct you: I wrote "I just don't like the idea, that's all, nothing more."

    If you think that humankind came from Mars, I have no problem with you believing that. I just don't agree with you on that point.
  11. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    21 Dec '09 01:15
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I never said distasteful, nor do I agree that this is what I feel.

    If you try to see everything in black or white, then I have to correct you: I wrote "I just don't like the idea, that's all, nothing more."

    If you think that humankind came from Mars, I have no problem with you believing that. I just don't agree with you on that point.
    Can you elucidate what it is you object to the idea life may have originated on Mars and spread to Earth via meteorite?
    The jury is for sure still out on that one, we have yet to prove life exists on Mars in the first place, so the origin on Mars theory has not even risen to the level of theory yet, only suppositions.
  12. 21 Dec '09 08:12
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Can you elucidate what it is you object to the idea life may have originated on Mars and spread to Earth via meteorite?
    The jury is for sure still out on that one, we have yet to prove life exists on Mars in the first place, so the origin on Mars theory has not even risen to the level of theory yet, only suppositions.
    Well, I just said that I don't like the idea, nothing more. I like more the idea that eartly life originated on Earth. It's an simple solution, and a simple solution is preferred over a more complicated one. (A phrase "'sombody's' razor" comes up in my mind. Help me, what's the phrase?)

    But only because I don't like the idea doesn't mean that there is a propability zero for this one. There are many scientific theories I don't like, even if the trend is that it is gaining territories in the scientific community. However, I don't think the 'Martian origin of earth life' is very common by serious scientists. It's a good idea, but I don't like it.

    We are talking about low probabilities here, not zero probabilities. Other low probability theories about the origin of earthly life is (*) the religious creation of various kinds, (*) that the life on earth is produced as a hobby in vitro project by an extraterrestrial civilization, (*) that life has always been there in the interstellar voids, or even the intergalactic voids, and such.

    But if our life came from another planet, a higher probability than it's coming from Mars, is that it's coming from Venus. The first period of Venus and Earth, we had very similar atmospheres. Venus was a bit warmer, but not much. It had water, land masses, and the right conditions for life. It would think it was more probable the life came from there. But still a verly low probability.

    I still think that the highest probability, and therefore the most likliest theory that Earthly life originated on Earth.

    But if, *if*, we found life on Mars, and it was equipped with a similar DNA structure, like ours, then I would find it very interesting. If it had another 'life molecule', I would be even more interested! The future will tell if we find anything.

    Please, don't read into 'I don't like the idea' than it is meant to.
  13. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    21 Dec '09 20:47
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Well, I just said that I don't like the idea, nothing more. I like more the idea that eartly life originated on Earth. It's an simple solution, and a simple solution is preferred over a more complicated one. (A phrase "'sombody's' razor" comes up in my mind. Help me, what's the phrase?)

    But only because I don't like the idea doesn't mean that there is ...[text shortened]...

    Please, don't read into 'I don't like the idea' than it is meant to.
    Ok, for you it's a matter of probability. The word btw, is Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. For me it's anything but clear where life originated. First off, I think life exists pretty much everywhere in the universe where conditions are favorable and indeed one of the theories of our universe is that it is highly unlikely that the laws in our universe came to be this way that allows life, in a random selection of the infinite ways to make a universe, out of trillions or more ways that laws can be constructed, like a universe where the speed of light is 1 km per hour, or the fine constant at 100 instead of 127, it is thought our universe came from a mother universe that had similar laws and ours is an extension of that previous universe, like maybe our universe is the other side of a black hole in a parent universe so our line of universe has evolved to allow life to form. 'To allow' is not the same thing as assuming a designer did it like the religious bunch would have it. It is more like we are on an end branch of universes that leads to laws that favor life. So in that context, life would have been around all over the universe and our solar system is a late comer, the universe was already 9 billion years old when our star started forming from the nova that came before, so clearly in that much time, life had to form elsewhere in our galaxy and other galaxies so the interstellar nursery cloud does not seem so far out of whack as a concept. We might get evidence for that if we find life on Mars and say Titan or Europa or the top clouds of Venus and find they all have some form of recognizable DNA, that would be a strong argument for the cloud theory of life. It is one thing for meteorites to whack Venus, Earth and Mars and such but quite another for a meteorite to have originated on Titan and ending up on any of the inner planets so that would be indeed a very large pointer to the cloud theory. Of course we may not live long enough for all that data to come about, so for now it is just another in a long string of suppositions.
  14. 30 Dec '09 10:14
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.physorg.com/news180264793.html

    It has been 13 years since the original analysis suggested they could not determine if the nanomagnetite crystals were evidence of life based activity, the same thing on earth is considered solid evidence of fossil life. This new work uses techniques unavailable way back in '96 and has, if confirmed, falsified th ...[text shortened]... s to fix their theories, otherwise the evidence will lean bigtime towards biological processes.
    this month's cover story for sci am.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-rise-and-fall-of-nanobacteria

    From the January 2010 Scientific American Magazine | 13 comments
    The Truth about Nanobacteria ( Preview )
    Once believed to be the smallest pathogens known, nanobacteria have now proved to be something almost as strange. They do play a role in health—just not the one originally thought

    By John D. Young and Jan Martel

    * Discoveries of purported nanoscale bacteria caused shock and excitement because the organisms seemed too small to live.
    * Claims for the tiniest of pathogens outpaced scientific validation until the authors and other scientists showed that although the particles appeared alive, in fact they were merely aberrant crystallizations of minerals and organic molecules.
    * The mineral-protein interactions that produce the nanoparticles nonetheless reveal details of processes that can protect or undermine human health.
  15. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    31 Dec '09 19:21
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    this month's cover story for sci am.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-rise-and-fall-of-nanobacteria

    From the January 2010 Scientific American Magazine | 13 comments
    The Truth about Nanobacteria ( Preview )
    Once believed to be the smallest pathogens known, nanobacteria have now proved to be something almost as strange. They do pl ...[text shortened]... noparticles nonetheless reveal details of processes that can protect or undermine human health.
    I have not gotten the Jan issue. Will soon. Are they talking about stuff like prions? Sounds like a good description of them.