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

From: Marc Fries <m.fries_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon Mar 21 13:24:53 2005
Message-ID: <1144.69.140.92.248.1109734506.squirrel_at_webmail.ciw.edu>

   An equally friendly return-Howdy. Debate is good.

> A friendly hello to all concerned with this
> perplexing issue,
>

   There are a number of intriguing arguments that life exists on Mars.
For each one so far, however, there is a more mundane explanation.
Racking up many conjectures, no matter how compelling, will not add up to
proof. Unfortunately this will be lost on the average person, since the
behavior of the media today means they will see the claims but miss the
rebuttals - you could say that we high-pass filter the issue! (or
low-pass; depends on your viewpoint)
   I would argue that we have to go beyond healthy scientific skepticism
in this case. We're discussing a topic that directly impacts our place in
the universe. All of human history can be written as a story of the
decline of human importance - from semi-divine beings for whom an
entire universe was created to a tiny, but unique, blip in an otherwise
sterile expanse. Once we do find that life exists elsewhere, nothing will
ever be the same, not to mention the fact that we're poised to sink
billions of dollars and risk many lives (and in all likelihood lose some
more) in the effort to sort this business out in the case of this one,
nearby planet. This is not a mere academic exercise, and we must not be
wrong about it. Within the scientific community, there has never been a
more severe need for extreme skepticism. Enthusiasm is good, and it
serves an important purpose. But if it leads to a point where we put our
blood, our fortune, and our understanding of what it means to be human on
the line for the wrong reasons then enthusiasm becomes the enemy.

   ...now I'll put aside my Skeptic Persona for long enough to say that I
think that there's a very good chance that life did evolve on Mars,
separately from Terrestrial life. I think it has retreated into the crust
as the air has grown cold and thin, and we'll find it if we look
carefully. BUT that's not certain - not even close. And I don't think
we have any proof to back up the claim of its existance. I won't
believe in it until I see a -chemical- signature of a distinct Martian
being. Several times, and without ambiguity. A certain shape won't cut
it - we've seen "organized elements" in Orgeil and canals on the Martian
surface. 'Nuff said. ...unless someone finds a lot of
something that's spiral-shaped, and preferably all twisting with the same
handedness...
   We must also be patient, perhaps to the point that we turn over the
effort to the next generation of scientists.

   If I only had every two cents' worth tossed in on this issue...!

Cheers,
MDF

> 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
>


-- 
Marc Fries
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Geophysical Laboratory
5251 Broad Branch Rd. NW
Washington, DC 20015
PH:  202 478 7970
FAX: 202 478 8901
Received on Tue 01 Mar 2005 10:35:06 PM PST


Help support this free mailing list:



StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
reddit
Yahoo MyWeb