4 ms·
TLDR; "Still, the rover has seen no physical traces of ancient microbes"
by sunjester 5y ago
TLDR; "Still, the rover has seen no physical traces of ancient microbes"
- awb 5y agoOr just the subtitle: > Dramatically “light” carbon could also be explained by atmospheric reactions or cosmic dust
- AYBABTME 5y agoNot a pro but AFAIK the threshold for anyone saying "yup we found life" would be very high and probably that the instruments currently deployed on Mars wouldn't possibly suffice to convince someone at NASA to make that call. That is, because (every?) experiments out there can be explained by a multitude of phenomenons that could be non-life based. I wouldn't be surprised if life turns out to be abundant over there and we've just been very hard-nosed on the evidence we'll accept. At least that's my understanding, when looking at summaries like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwXSEP3_Rwk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwXSEP3_Rwk.
- hulitu 5y agoThe problem is that there is so much noise regarding life on other planets (we found life on Venus, we found life on Mars ) that when we will really will be finding something will be something like "Another clickbaity title".
- RosanaAnaDana 5y agoI dont think we would expect physical traces, but rather chemical traces.