4 ms·

The evidence for extant microbial life on mars is getting pretty solid at this point. Seasonal methane. Seasonal oxygen. Viking label release experiments. Now

The evidence for extant microbial life on mars is getting pretty solid at this point. Seasonal methane. Seasonal oxygen. Viking label release experiments. Now accumulation of C12. At some point someone has to call it. I'll take my down votes, but I'll wager I've thought about this longer and more carefully than most. I urge you to think critically about this.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Given the milestone that the discovery of extraterrestrial life represents, I would expect nothing short of actually seeing a martian microbe that is provably not a hitchhiker from earth before anyone credible "calls it".
- plutonorm 5y ago
  You may be correct, but there is also a huge taboo here and it's damaging to the pursuit of truth.
  - biorach 5y ago
    There is not a taboo. There is a very very high standard of proof required, rightly so because of the sensational nature of the subject.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    How damaging is it to not call it until there's proof? How damaging would it be to call it and later have to retract it? Seems to me it's better to wait for definitive proof than to go without it.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    What is wrong with saying that it is increasingly likely that there is life on mars and waiting to call it until we see it. Whats the rush and who is it hurting?
nescioquid 5y ago
As a very casual observer who hasn't thought long and carefully on this topic, it seems we've been looking for life on mars since the 70's with nothing conclusive having been found (not that we've applied exhaustive efforts over the last 50 years). > At some point someone has to call it. With humility, why would that point be anywhere prior to actually finding a Martian organism? I recall people seemed willing to "call it" after President Clinton's remarks on rock 84001, and so on. Genuinely curious if there is some criteria to conclusively show past/present life on Mars in the absence of the discovery of an organism. I'm thinking also of the headline-grabbing announcement of biological processes on Venus owing to phosphine observations.
- plutonorm 5y ago
  If you are genuinely asking - there has not been a concerted effort to find extant life on mars. Missions since the viking era have been strictly geological in nature. As so often happens in science, certain theories become taboo. Martian life was one of these and as a result the targeting of the missions became ultra focused on geology. It is only as the sophistication of instrumentation has improved that these signs have emerged as incidental observations outside of a targeted search for life. By saying "call it", I am fighting against the prevailing taboo of seriously considering and acknowledging the possibility of life on mars. As regards phosphine in Venus's atmosphere, the jury is most definitely still out on that one.
  - nescioquid 5y ago
    Thanks, I was genuinely asking and I see I misunderstood what you were saying. I hadn't realized that looking for Martian life was scientifically taboo, though I vaguely recall seeing something about funding sources being skittish about it at some point (maybe that's tantamount to the same thing). At any rate, I agree this shouldn't be closed to inquiry, though I imagine there's close competition for which experiments and observations to run on Mars. If that's true, does that amount to a taboo or does it just indicate that other lines of investigation have a higher expected utility? Or perhaps you are just saying that at this point, you feel there is enough evidence to warrant a more full-bodied investigation? Again, genuinely interested.
Beltiras 5y ago
I don't think you deserve downvotes, but your appeal to an authority (yourself), is not very convincing on it's own.
- queuebert 5y ago
  What if he's a Martian in disguise?
  - djmips 5y ago
    Reddit's calling you.
q1w2 5y ago
I think the "point someone calls it" will be when we see images of them under a microscope. Is the theory that they are too deep under ground for a rover to dig up and look at?
- kadoban 5y ago
  Images under a microscope may not do it. They could be contamination from Earth either at time of test or before that.
  - hyperbovine 5y ago
    Genetic analysis to the rescue. It will be glaringly obvious whether billions of years of divergent evolution have occurred or not.
  - q1w2 5y ago
    Finding an entire culture in multiple Martian ground samples, with different bacteria would likely rule out Earth contamination.
yupper32 5y ago
Meh. It's not like there are immediate action items if they just call it and say "there was life on Mars". Might as well take their time and be as sure as they can.
- kadoban 5y ago
  It may change research priorities if we knew/admitted that life used to exist. If there _was_ life, we should search harder and see if it still exists and if we can find it. We could learn a lot of really exciting things from a potentially alien set of living things. As I understand it, we're really not looking that closely for life at the moment.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    > As I understand it, we're really not looking that closely for life at the moment. ??? Perseverance: https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/overview/ https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/overview/ Two out of the four science objectives: - Looking for habitability: identify past environments that were capable of supporting microbial life. - Seeking biosignatures: seek signs of possible past microbial life in those habitable environments, particularly in specific rock types known to preserve signs over time. Curiosity: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/science/objectives/ https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/science/objectives/ Three of the eight science objectives: - Determine the nature and inventory of organic carbon compounds - Inventory the chemical building blocks of life (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur) - Identify features that may represent the effects of biological processes
    - kadoban 5y ago
      That's, as I understand it, looking for markers that _may_ mean there was, at any point in the past, life. I think you'd look other places, and use other instruments if you're looking for actual, current, life.
      - Scarblac 5y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

Given the milestone that the discovery of extraterrestrial life represents, I would expect nothing short of actually seeing a martian microbe that is provably not a hitchhiker from earth before anyone credible "calls it".

plutonorm 5y ago
You may be correct, but there is also a huge taboo here and it's damaging to the pursuit of truth.
- biorach 5y ago
  There is not a taboo. There is a very very high standard of proof required, rightly so because of the sensational nature of the subject.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  How damaging is it to not call it until there's proof? How damaging would it be to call it and later have to retract it? Seems to me it's better to wait for definitive proof than to go without it.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  What is wrong with saying that it is increasingly likely that there is life on mars and waiting to call it until we see it. Whats the rush and who is it hurting?

nescioquid 5y ago

As a very casual observer who hasn't thought long and carefully on this topic, it seems we've been looking for life on mars since the 70's with nothing conclusive having been found (not that we've applied exhaustive efforts over the last 50 years). > At some point someone has to call it. With humility, why would that point be anywhere prior to actually finding a Martian organism? I recall people seemed willing to "call it" after President Clinton's remarks on rock 84001, and so on. Genuinely curious if there is some criteria to conclusively show past/present life on Mars in the absence of the discovery of an organism. I'm thinking also of the headline-grabbing announcement of biological processes on Venus owing to phosphine observations.

plutonorm 5y ago
If you are genuinely asking - there has not been a concerted effort to find extant life on mars. Missions since the viking era have been strictly geological in nature. As so often happens in science, certain theories become taboo. Martian life was one of these and as a result the targeting of the missions became ultra focused on geology. It is only as the sophistication of instrumentation has improved that these signs have emerged as incidental observations outside of a targeted search for life. By saying "call it", I am fighting against the prevailing taboo of seriously considering and acknowledging the possibility of life on mars. As regards phosphine in Venus's atmosphere, the jury is most definitely still out on that one.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  Thanks, I was genuinely asking and I see I misunderstood what you were saying. I hadn't realized that looking for Martian life was scientifically taboo, though I vaguely recall seeing something about funding sources being skittish about it at some point (maybe that's tantamount to the same thing). At any rate, I agree this shouldn't be closed to inquiry, though I imagine there's close competition for which experiments and observations to run on Mars. If that's true, does that amount to a taboo or does it just indicate that other lines of investigation have a higher expected utility? Or perhaps you are just saying that at this point, you feel there is enough evidence to warrant a more full-bodied investigation? Again, genuinely interested.

Beltiras 5y ago

I don't think you deserve downvotes, but your appeal to an authority (yourself), is not very convincing on it's own.

queuebert 5y ago
What if he's a Martian in disguise?
- djmips 5y ago
  Reddit's calling you.

q1w2 5y ago

I think the "point someone calls it" will be when we see images of them under a microscope. Is the theory that they are too deep under ground for a rover to dig up and look at?

kadoban 5y ago
Images under a microscope may not do it. They could be contamination from Earth either at time of test or before that.
- hyperbovine 5y ago
  Genetic analysis to the rescue. It will be glaringly obvious whether billions of years of divergent evolution have occurred or not.
- q1w2 5y ago
  Finding an entire culture in multiple Martian ground samples, with different bacteria would likely rule out Earth contamination.

yupper32 5y ago

Meh. It's not like there are immediate action items if they just call it and say "there was life on Mars". Might as well take their time and be as sure as they can.

kadoban 5y ago
It may change research priorities if we knew/admitted that life used to exist. If there _was_ life, we should search harder and see if it still exists and if we can find it. We could learn a lot of really exciting things from a potentially alien set of living things. As I understand it, we're really not looking that closely for life at the moment.
- yupper32 5y ago
  > As I understand it, we're really not looking that closely for life at the moment. ??? Perseverance: https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/overview/ https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/overview/ Two out of the four science objectives: - Looking for habitability: identify past environments that were capable of supporting microbial life. - Seeking biosignatures: seek signs of possible past microbial life in those habitable environments, particularly in specific rock types known to preserve signs over time. Curiosity: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/science/objectives/ https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/science/objectives/ Three of the eight science objectives: - Determine the nature and inventory of organic carbon compounds - Inventory the chemical building blocks of life (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur) - Identify features that may represent the effects of biological processes
  - kadoban 5y ago
    That's, as I understand it, looking for markers that _may_ mean there was, at any point in the past, life. I think you'd look other places, and use other instruments if you're looking for actual, current, life.
    - Scarblac 5y ago