'Life on Mars' Meteorite Rejected After 10 Years 219
An anonymous reader writes "Ten years ago, NASA announced that the Martian meteorite ALH84001 showed evidence of life on Mars. The announcement made headlines around the world, and even prompted President Clinton to make a statement. Ten years later, most scientists believe that everything in the meteorite can be explained by non-biological processes. "We certainly have not convinced the community, and that's been a little bit disappointing," said David McKay, a scientist behind the 'life on Mars' paper. Unfortunately, David McKay's own brother is one of his critics. "He [David] got a little testy about the results we were getting," said Gordon McKay. "What we have shown is that it is possible to form these things inorganically.""
The hard truth (Score:3, Insightful)
No one wants to admit life started out there somewhere. For all we know the meteorites seeded life on Earth... and elsewhere. Why is it so hard for people to believe life exists beyond earth? The probabilities and facts dictate the earth is not the center of the universe.
I for one think it would be good for mankind to have a significant first contact with a superior race. At least then we can then look to exploration and not war to keep us occupied while we grow up.
Re:The hard truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because people believe life started elsewhere doesn't mean that this rock is an example of life. Wanting life to exist elsewhere does not account for good scientific judgement. I fear that Mr. McKay has much of the former but little of the latter.
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
It had to start somewhere, but why did have to start "out there". That's not enough to explain the origins anyway, it just defers the question (ie. how did life start "out there").
How is a meteorite, or Mars, or whatever, a better place to kick-start life than earth?
Re:The hard truth (Score:4, Interesting)
Before people start getting uppity about silicon-based life and how it could exist on a very hot planet, keep this in mind: Yes, silicon organics are possible and have been synthesized - but what would they use instead of water? In order to be as flexible as carbon organics, they have to be much hotter (> 100C), so there is a need for a liquid that handles those temperatures with similar properties (Anyone know the properties of Li2S?)
I submit that it is no accident that earth life is carbon-based. Lower energies needed to remain pliable and adaptable at the molecular level, and it just happens to be the most promiscuous atom to be found (can handle four covalent bonds and links up far more rapidly to the next-best, silicon).
I think if we're going to find life out there, we should be looking for a planet with similar heat characteristics to earth, with an asteroid belt or cometary system that would cause likley impacts every hundered thousand years or so (often enough to produce many many high-energy impact events to stir things up enough to form life, but not often enough to kill all life before it's got a chance to go multicellular)
I mean, once you're in our temperature range, water's a no brainer. Just captured solar wind over the millenia may be enough hydrogen to allow enough water to accrete on a planetoid (especially if there's enough oxygen in the planetoid's original mass-mix).
Re:The hard truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The hard truth (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The hard truth (Score:2, Funny)
Bidibidibidi...Yup...Bidibidibidibidi.
Re:The hard truth (Score:5, Insightful)
No one wants to admit life started out there somewhere. For all we know the meteorites seeded life on Earth... and elsewhere.
Er, exactly how would life begin on a meteorite? Exactly what chemistry would allow that to happen? I think it's a tad more likely that life would begin on a planet with the requisite natural resources.
The probabilities and facts dictate the earth is not the center of the universe.
We have absolutely zero evidence for life on planets other than earth. On the other hand, we have considerable evidence [wikipedia.org] that we're alone in the galaxy (other galaxies are too far away to know anything about).
I for one think it would be good for mankind to have a significant first contact with a superior race. At least then we can then look to exploration and not war to keep us occupied while we grow up.
I for one think magic wands would be good for mankind as well. Then we could keep busy with our wands and not war. It would also eliminate resource limitations, which are fundamentally the reason for war. Magic wands are about as likely as alien life, so why not go for broke?
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Magic wands require breaking most physical laws, alien life does not. I think you're grossly underestimating the likelihood of alien life!
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Magic wands require breaking most physical laws, alien life does not. I think you're grossly underestimating the likelihood of alien life!
Well, I might have exaggerated a tiny bit, but it was mostly in response to the original poster's silly point that seemed to imply that finding alien life was some social responsibility, as though we only had to pony up the money in order to make it a reality.
Frankly, the Fermi argument pretty much convinces me that intelligent life here is completely unique in the
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
On the other hand, we have considerable evidence that we're alone in the galaxy (other galaxies are too far away to know anything about).
Actually we have zero evidence either way. You link to the fermi paradox, which is not a paradox, nor is it an acceptable theory, and at the end of the day, scarcely reaches the level of idle canteen chatter. To say that the elements in the "paradox" are not the whole story would qualify as the understatement of the decade.
Heres a couple of madcap theories:
1. They
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
You link to the fermi paradox, which is not a paradox, nor is it an acceptable theory, and at the end of the day, scarcely reaches the level of idle canteen chatter.
If you think the Fermi Paradox is not strong evidence, then I suggest you haven't completely studied the ramifications.
I think the strongest argument is the "time to fill" argument. Basically, when you figure out how long it takes to fill a galaxy by a space-faring civilization, even at sublight speeds, it only takes a few million years. G
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
If you think the Fermi Paradox is not strong evidence, then I suggest you haven't completely studied the ramifications.
.9c from a distance of 200 light years. Even if a single race did explore the galaxy, there are a myriad of reasons why th
Nope it is not evidence. Maybe there is something we don't know about stopping interstellar travel. Maybe there was a giant war in this part of the universe a few hundred thousand years ago. Maybe someone did pick up our signals and is chugging merrily towards us at
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Nope it is not evidence.
I think you're confusing the word "evidence" with "proof". I never said the Fermi Paradox proved anything, I only said it provided evidence of certain things. We can ask infinite "what if" questions. Hey, what if God created everything five minutes ago, and we only think we've been alive longer than that? I can cast doubt on anything with endless "what if" scenerios. The point is that we have zero evidence for any of your "what if" scenerios, and we have a lot of evidence of a la
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Er, exactly what chemistry would allow life to happen PERIOD? We don't know how to create life and it's entirely possible that life can be based on a chemical make-up other than our chemical make-up. I know a lot of people have said that our form of life is the only one that could possibly work but I'll tak
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Wikipedia misses the most obvious answer to the Fermi paradox - that aliens are out there, know we exist, and are frankly too disgusted by a race that would invent slashdot to have any desire to communicate with us. In fact, they're purposefully avoiding us because they hate the idea of getting embroiled in long purposeless debates about subjects that don't matter with peo
Re:The hard truth (Score:3, Interesting)
Life doesnt "begin" on a meteorite, but the building blocks can be found on meteorites.
And why would "building blocks" be more likely to be found on meteorites rather than Earth itself? And conversely, why would Earth not have any building blocks?
And why does it matter at all what role meteorites might or might not play in abiogenesis?
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Its not the fact that meteorites are "more likely" to carry the organic chemicals nessicary to building life. Rather, it offers one explination to the question of the orgin of life.
You're missing my point. What, exactly, do meteorites "explain" about the origin of life? In other words, what puzzle do meteorites explain that can't be explained otherwise? Or to put it still another way, what key thing would meteorites contribute that "explains" life?
Re:The hard truth (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Life had its origins on Earth, and is not to be found elsewhere.
2. Life started elsewhere, and is only present on Earth by virtue of some metorite hitting the right spot.
Science will accept NEITHER of these without proof. Science (good science anyway) is always testing EVERY hypothesis. Anything in science is ALWAYS open to being challenged, revisited, updated, or thrown out if contradicted. If it isn't, it's not science.
This is a very uncomfortable thing for lots of people, who want certainties in their lives. But science is what it is - certainties last only as long as the evidence supports them. F=ma could go out the window tomorrow if conclusive experimental evidence indicates it isn't true. (Now, after a certain point, things are assumed to be correct until proven otherwise, in order to make progress possible. But EVERYTHING in science is ALWAYS subject to challenge. Your challenge had better be good for F=ma though, since there is a VERY large body of evidence suggesting that relationship is a useful description of part of the natural world.)
So I'd say that instead of it being hard for people to believe there is life beyond Earth, it is important that any evidence of such life be subject to skeptical and rigorous test. This is why you have people looking for ways something could NOT be a sign of life - to make sure we don't overlook something in our hope that there IS other life out there. Good science has no favorites, and the facts will ALWAYS overrule wishful thinking (one way or the other.) If someone gets a result they want, one of the best things for them to do is sit down and think of ways this result could NOT mean what you want it to mean.
If we have first contact with a superior race (what is superior, anyway? more advanced? more peaceful?) the consequences will likely be completely unpredictable. I doubt meaningful communication would be established for a VERY long time (if it even CAN be established) - science fiction grossly underestimates that difficulty, in my opinion. And no doubt a sizable percentage of the population wouldn't be able to handle it, particularly if it/they are really different from us. We have enough trouble handling ourselves, nevermind something REALLY alien.
Re:The hard truth (Score:2, Insightful)
Everything EXCEPT skepticism itself that is. That is not subject to challenge now is it?
One mustn't question the process itself - since we accept as a matter of faith - of religious dogma - that skepticism is the right way to do things. Anyone who questions the process of skepticism is a BLASPHEMER in the church of science.
Exactly what is the scientific confidence level that skepticism is the correct way to do things? How did scientists reach that c
Re:The hard truth (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Instead of an adversarial system - a cooperative system is the way to do things - with errors gently pointed out instead of with scorn and ridicule as is done today.
Skepticism attempts to eliminate "false positives" from science in the process it throws in a lot of "false negatives" - it rejects
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
How do you know that those things are true when some other possible explanation exists?
You know by challenging them: By considering which predictions can be made based on the theory you believe to be true, and trying to find ways to contradict those predictions. In other words, by being skeptic.
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
I wasn't aware of cooperative systems until I got into martial arts under a cooperative system - the difference is dramatic. It has nothing to do with "being nice". The rate at which you learn in a cooperative system is so great that sometimes the students literally get dizzy with how much information they get in one session. It has to do with people all heading in the same direction seeking a common goal instead of fighting w
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Sorry if peer-reviews and critiques seem aversarial to you. It's not at all an adversarial system. As the other poster said, some folks may be pricks about the way they point out flaws rather than very sweet, but th
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
After the patent application has been filed, that is....
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Was that not a challenge?
Well the results of using skepticism can be addressed scientifically actually.
Theory: skepticism leads to rise in understanding of nature.
Support: Our challenging eg, newton's theories have lead to general relativity, quantum physics et al, that have increased our understanding of nature, and lead to technological advancements.
Tests: If futher analysis shows that evidance supporting newer theor
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
I think you chose an interesting example of the reasonableness of science wrt to changing it's hypothesis.
Discover Magazine currently [discover.com] has a cover article that suggests that a change to that exact formula is required: "a change to F = ma/a0 when accelerations fall below one 10-billionth of a meter per second every second".
Not surprisingly, the physicist is facing a lot of resistance to the change, a good deal of it just due to the fact that F=ma has lots of historical precedent, not strictly becuase o
Re:The hard truth (Score:5, Insightful)
For all we know the meteorites seeded life on Earth
So far the theory of panspermia is very far from proven, and the most widely accepted theory about the formation of life on earth is not panspermia but chemical reactions forming aminate acids, or somethnig of this kind.
Why is it so hard for people to believe life exists beyond earth?
When it comes to science, thou shalt ban the verb 'to believe' out of thy vocabulary.
I for one think it would be good for mankind to have a significant first contact with a superior race
Why do people systematically consider that an extraterrestrial race would have to be superior to us in the same way that we are superior to the rest of animals? Keep us occupied while we grow up? What's making you think that we're growing up? Our nature is immuable, the only way we can give ourselves the feeling of evolving is through the evolution of our civilization, but that's not going to make us closer to any hypothetical superior extraterrestrial race, if there even can be such a thing as animals significantly superior to us. It seems that the idea of us being probably the most evolved life form possible has went through relatively few people's minds.
Back to the topic, scientists have no trouble admitting some forms of life might exist or might have existed in the universe, even inside our very own solar system. But the object of this article is about determining whether this precise piece of rock reveals the existence of any actual extraterrestrial form of life, it's not about determining whether there could or could not have been life in the Universe, nor even on Mars.
It's all about this precise rock.
Why? (Score:2)
Why is it so hard for people to believe life exists beyond earth?
There is no proof on either side so one can't take a position without a belief or hypothesis.Fear and tradition.
The hypothesis that there is other life is the better approach because it makes you look for it. The other side likely would not be looking as hard and pushing for a narrow definition for life.
Once we find signs of life, then we can make loose estimates on how much there is.
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
And replace it with what?
"I guess"? Doesn't inspire much confidence, like "I guess the moon goes around the earth" sounds very uncertain.
"I know"? Well this is definitely not scientific, as it ignores that there are possibly alternatives; sounds too certain.
"I postulate"? "I hypothesize"? Well they basically are the same as "I believe", and am sure you must be complaining about the meaning of the word rather than something
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Convinced = belief based on evidence.
Maybe, but you should still avoid using the verb to believe.
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
But in all seriousness, belief gives one the impression of having a certain view on things, and not changing ones view despite evidence to the contrary.
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Since Mars is so much smaller than Earth, it probably cooled and formed a crust first. If life developed on Mars, it may well have done so while it was still impossible here. It appe
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Why is it so hard for people to believe life could have formed here on its own?
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Superior races (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet, even assuming such races exist, the probability for our meeting them is exceedingly small. Consider that it took about ten thousand years for us to go from the stone age to space exploration. Viable planets for developing life had existed for several billion years before life arose in the Earth.
Therefore, for us to meet a race that's more advanced than us, but not so advanced for that contact to become completely irrelevant, we would have to meet a race that developed just a tiny bit of time, percentage wise, before we did.
If and when we find life outside the Earth, it will most probably be either very primitive or very advanced relative to us. Baring extreme coincidence, any more advanced race we are likely to meet will have as much to teach us as we have to teach to a garden slug.
Re:Superior races (Score:2)
It is possible that we are near the limits of technological advancement. It is also possible that we are near a point of advancement beyond wich progress is extremely slow. I doubt this is the case, but I won't consider it proven as you seem to do.
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
"No one wants to admit life started out there somewhere. For all we know the meteorites seeded life on Earth... and elsewhere. Why is it so hard for people to believe life exists beyond earth?"
Who is having trouble believing that life exists out there? What the topic of this debate is whether or not a particular rock (the ALH84001 meteorite) contains life. At first scientists believed they had found evidence of life in it, but in the 10 years since they havn't won over much support.
"I for one think i
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Why is it so hard for people to believe life exists beyond earth? The probabilities and facts dictate the earth is not the center of the universe.
It is possible to believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe while still having a scientific responsibility to prove that the artifacts in the Mars meteorite could have happened by inorganic processes.
Why is it that so many folks here whine about nobody following scientific process until it proves that something they want to believe in may not be true,
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Quite the opposite, actually. Nobody wants to admit we may be all alone in the whole Universe.
Most everyone (you included) is looking for the Deus ex machina to come along and solve all our problems for us.
It is equally as hard to believe life exists beyond earth, as it is to believe it does not.
The Earth is n
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Your belief system is interesting. However, without proof, it is just that.... a belief system. Science is not to be based upon your faith, or mine. I, for one, doubt life is very common across the universe, and sincerely doubt intelligent life has more than an infintessimal chance of existing on any given planet. I believe we are damn lucky.
Nonetheless, I support
Re:The hard truth (Score:3, Insightful)
See the colonization of the Americas for a good reference.
Are implying that the Native Americans were an inferior race? They were the same species that the invaders were. After they were decimated by the European's small pox and other diseases they simply didn't have the numbers to defend their land.
A 'superior' race would have survived and evolved past tribal behaviour or they couldn't be called superior. And who says
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Re:The hard truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Re:The hard truth (Score:3, Interesting)
What greater technology? Guns, religion, butter churners? It didn't take long for the Indians to get guns. It was the diseases from the Europeans filthy way of life that did them in, after that is was simply the vast numbers of ever increasing invaders that finished them off. It had nothing to do with superiority.
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
One VERY important note: the natives couldn't MAKE guns. That is huge. Also there is no doubt the Europeans had greater technology as they were able to make large boats and had the navigational capacity to go to the Americas and back. But the most important factors were that the Europeans had steel tools, guns, and diseases (and it is also notable that the diseases pretty much all originated from domesticated animals, which the native nations were sorely
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
The truth is the white man had superior techonolgy, and that gave them a huge edge in winning. I realize it's in vouge nowadays to pretend American Indians were some super advanced society that we ruined, but in reality they were a primitive bunch of people who lost their land to people coming from a superior culture.
If you wonder what America would be like today if it had never been colonized, take a look at Africa.
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
It may be that it was simply lucky timing on the part of the Spaniards in at least the case of the Aztecs. Discover Magazine [discover.com] talked about the possibility that the Aztecs already dealt with smallpox, and that a series of smallpox and other outbreaks in 1520, 1531, 1546, and 1576.
It's retrospective diagnosis, and such diagnoses are always subject to debate, but may be worth considering. Its value may be questioned insofar as it doesn'
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Guns, lots of guns, the ability to make guns, etc. Indians, at best, had fewer, more primitive guns than their European counterparts.
Besides that, there was technology like forts, ships, wagons, custom-bred animals, the practice of medicine (primitive, but worked much better than chanting to spirits), steel tools (saws, hammers), food preservation and preperation, etc.
Modern military strategies, the sk
Re:The hard truth (Score:3, Insightful)
God forbid! Nobody could be superior to anyone else!
Lets face it, European culture was superior which led to their technical advantage. Why do people ignore the truth? Does it hurt that badly to say one culture is inferior to another?
Take a look at the middle east today, what does that shithole have on western culture?
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
Re:The hard truth (Score:2)
You mean they'd come all this way, potentially thousands of light years, just to collect us up and take us off somewhere?
From a logistical standpoint alone the idea is absurd.
And enslaving us on earth? Well, the earth is a big place, and there are billions of us. Again it's a logistics thing. The difficulty involved would outwiegh the benifits vastly, if there were any benifits.
Nor would they eat us. The chances of a race getting to the point where they can acheive the seemingly im
No overlords after all (Score:2, Funny)
burden of proof (Score:5, Insightful)
Luckily, just because the meteor may not have signs of former life, doesn't mean mars never had any. It would be really sad if our solar system turned out to be sterile.
Re:burden of proof (Score:3, Insightful)
But grammar nitpicking aside, why would it be sad if the other planets were sterile, exactly? What difference would that _actually_ make to us, here on Earth?
Re:burden of proof (Score:2)
Well, personally, it wouldn't make one whit of difference.
Reasons that it would be sad is that it would speak to the "prevalence" of life in the universe. If our little backwater of a solar system can have two or three or four bodies that support life, it might be common. Since we believe that more complex life (eg animals, worms, etc.) evolves from simpler life (eg, bacteria), the more simple life we find means that, statistically, we have a
Re:burden of proof (Score:2)
What is life anyway? Does it have to be organic?
Maybe the problem is that we're looking for life that's similar to us---possibly breathing oxygen existing in our gravity/temperature range, and fond of water. Such life is unlikely to be present anywhere but on an identical twin planet.
That still leaves the possibility of life evolving in ways that we would consider impossible (or would not consider life at all). Maybe `they' have al
Re:burden of proof (Score:2)
Re:burden of proof (Score:2)
Yes, it would be very sad if we all found out we aren't actually alive.
cool science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:cool science (Score:2, Interesting)
I assume there will be "life" in most places.
Just look around this great varied Earth of ours. In the furthest reaches [state.tx.us], in the darkest depths [sunysb.edu] and the most impossible places [nasa.gov] we find that it flourishes.
We have barely begun to look around on Mars and we certainly haven't dug far below the surface, give it time and I think we will find it.
Why is it so difficult to believe we are alone?
Re:cool science (Score:5, Insightful)
It is true that we do find life in some rather inhospitable places, like highly radioactive nuclear reactor cores, inside solid rock, in boiling steam vents, metabolizing sulfur -- but does that mean life can arise in such places, or does it require particular conditions to arise, and then it is capable of evolving to adapt to such harsh environments? The basic amino acids that constitute life do not survive in such environments. The living organisms which live in such environments have special mechanisms to protect and repair their delicate parts.
But the places where we find the most diversity of life is in the oceans and the tropical rain forests. That tells me there are a few elements that life really wants -- a relatively small temperature window, light, and most importantly water. The oceans are water, and the tropical rain forests are almost always at 100% humidity. I would even say that the temperature range that life wants is the range of liquid water. Taking this a step further, I would say that anywhere we find liquid water, we will find life.
Let's hear it for the scientific process! (Score:3, Interesting)
Compare to Creationism. *Cough* excuse me, "Intelligent Design".
If I may inject a personal note, I do believe in God. But I don't believe He created an existance so simple that anything we don't understand must have His hand directly involved.
From a programming perspective (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, but your scientific method gives us an infinite loop. Revise it.
Re:Let's hear it for the scientific process! (Score:2)
That may be a reasonable thing to assume for repeatable experiments that you are doing in your laboratory. And it's probably a good idea to generally look for and favor naturalistic solutions to events that happen in general. But to go from "Anything we don't understand msut have His hand directly involved" to "God's hand is absolut
Re:Let's hear it for the scientific process! (Score:2)
Tough Day to be a Martian (Score:5, Interesting)
Regardless of current life conditions I still hold out hope for past life fossil discoveries, multi-cellular past life. Several of the Mars rover pictures look to show fossils, but NASA is being very cautious in it assessments. Not sure what the ID camp or Creationists will make of bring back criniod like fossils from Mars estimated to be 1-2 billion years old. Actually I already pretty much do know, so consider the question rhetorical.
Re:Decay (Score:2)
Just determining the exact chemical composition of the soil and air is almost certainly more useful now and runs far less risk than what you propose.
McKays (Score:5, Funny)
Their third brother, Rodney, was unfortunately too far away to comment on the possibility of life on other worlds.
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:2, Insightful)
What's more important in this collective fetish to colonize Mars (manned bases, mining, etc.) - to determine that some kind of life was ONCE there? Or to prove that, whatever the circumstances, we can introduce sustainable life to aid in colonization? (And, yes: I've read K.S.Robinson's 'Red/Green/Blue Mars' trilogy.)
I can't see where it matters at all, in the grand scheme of extraterrestrial colonization, whether or not bugs (cells, bacteria, et
Re:So... (Score:2)
Unnecessary Evidence. (Score:4, Interesting)
rhY
Re:Unnecessary Evidence. (Score:3, Insightful)
You cannot give any statistical analysis with only one (positive) sample. That is a statistic with an infinite margin of error.
If you ask 100 people a yes/no question, and only one person says "yes", does that mean 60 million people in the world would also say "yes", or does that mean in a freak of chance, you just happen to get the one single person of al
Re:Dunno how *likely*, but it's certainly *possibl (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's the whole point. You don't know if 60 million others will agree, or if absolutely no-one else will agree. At the absolute least, you need more than one sample to make an educated guess.
No, it's not a good bet at all. You don't have any way of knowing that what we have here is common, or an utter freak occura
Terrible (Score:2, Funny)
I can't help but think of using this for religion (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what it looks like when the process beats an idea with logic and testing and eventually disproves what they really wanted to be true. In things like "intelligent design" it could never ever come out with such a neutral result agreed upon by people who may have been very much for the idea the entire time. No lying, not falsifying, no BS logic.... just the truth through science.
I applaud their dilligence, and wonder if that guy in Vegas who one the "when will life on other planets be dicovered" jackpot gets to keep his $$$
Re:I can't help but think of using this for religi (Score:2)
Meanwhile, at the McKay family dinner table (Score:2, Funny)
David: Hey Mom! Guess what? I just discovered life on Mars!
Gordon: Did not!
David: Did too!
Gordon: Did not!
David: Did too!
Mom: (Sigh.)
Come on editors... (Score:2)
It's always been BS (Score:2)
I'll never forget the very intelligent and very adament scientist who told me the "Mars life Rock" was total BS. He went on to say that it was geology, not biology.
Mind you, he also told me that NASA would ride it to the end to make sure that they could send missions to Mars.
The woman that found it was a minor celebrity and ran the lab for several years.
So how much did this rock cost me? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only now? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Only now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically from the word go their has been many many scientist that questioned the theory presented for the origin of the features in the meteorite. A handful of those scientist did experiments over the _years_ since (research takes time) to see if any non-organic processes could have produced similar structures and they have found ones that can.
Re:Only now? (Score:2)
Re:Only now? (Score:2)
Re:its belief that keeps it going (Score:2, Informative)
the rock in question is actually a metiorite(sp?) that fell in antartica, I dont believe we(humans) have ever brought anything back from mars, its a one way trip.
If some scientists believe there is life on mars, why try hard to disprove them?
Its part of the scientific process, nothing is considered fact even so called "Laws" its just not disproven yet. One of the other posts on here outlined the scienfic process in a really simplistic way, maybe
Re:its belief that keeps it going (Score:2)
The irony is that science still maintains the possibility that it is.
Re:Trust the Scotts (Score:2)
Re:Assume - Ass out of U and Me (Score:2)
Re:Much ado about nothing? (Score:2)