It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"The Viking lander mission’s series of assays known collectively as the Labeled Release experiment (LR) continues to give rise to controversy, Mario Crocco, Director of the Neurobiology Research Centre at Ministry of Health in the Argentine Republic reports. Crocco has developed a taxonomical entry for the active agent on Mars, which he calls Gillevinia straata (named for the LR experimenters Gilbert Levin and Patricia Straat), and that is characterized by its behavior based on the reports from Viking’s LR experiment. Crocco’s published paper on the classification attaches a name to the putative Martian life using taxonomic conventions. In current taxonomy, the organism’s DNA
plays a large part in identification and naming, but Crocco does not have DNA evidence of the organism. The organism has never been isolated and therefore is a rare specimen to go through the taxonomic process." Mario Crocco reports his developments, including a thorough examination of the LR’s experimental design, and results in the April 2007 issue of Electroneurobiología."
@DIN, 1/6/07 - Argentine scientists of the hospital Hut, employee of the GCBA, determined that there is Mars life. They did it after a new interpretation, emanated data of the carried out experiments by the spaceship Viking in 1976. This way, they corrected the reading conducted by the scientists of the NASA, who with he himself material had defined the nonexistence of life in the red planet.
"Being based on such studies, the NASA had concluded in 1976 that was impossible the existence of life in the red planet. Due to that erroneous interpretation, the NASA continued sending its apparatuses without sterilizing. Now which the presence is known life, it is possible that the soundings that descended in Mars they introduced terrestrial microorganisms; that contamination could affect the native life. The NASA not only said that there was no Mars life, but that the planet could not support life since this one would be annihilated by the ultra-violet rayses of the Sun that cross the Martian atmosphere and cosmic rays of diverse origin, that is to say, that, Mars car becomes sterile. This way, from 1976 the NASA sent to Mars its apparatuses without sterilizing. Now which the presence of life in the planet was demonstrated, it is demonstrated that the soundings that descended in Mars they introduced terrestrial microorganisms. The possibility that fits that contamination affects the native life. This way, the NASA has a great responsibility in this problem and drags in that to THAT (European Agency Space) that followed its passages without hesitations. “In addition”, Pablo Della Paolera comments the Buenosairean scientist “cannot occur the luxury of to have spent million dollars of the contributors in missions to Mars, so that those are the Argentineans that process the received data well and are they them discoverers of the Mars life… According to the Lic. Della Paolera this forces the NASA “to change its plans, to sterilize the next missions (what it has stop cost) and to put detectors of active life (not of molecules), that from 1976 were not used more by to have supposed hastily that there was no Mars life”. “This”, also comments Della Paolera “puts in risk contracts with private companies that construct instruments so that NASA sends them in its missions, the next ones even glided for the 2008 and the 2020”.
"By the end of 2006, Mario Crocco, neurobiologist at the Neuropsychiatric Hospital Borda (Buenos Aires, Argentina), had re-evaluated the data collected by that mission, adding data from recent investigations. The article was published in Electroneurobiología, a State journal that devotes a section to basic concepts in theoretical biology. They postulate that the results are consistent with the presence of microbial life in the surface of the planet, and have proposed the name Gillevinia straata. as characterized by the observed activity, inasmuch as the new data, together with concepts discussed in the author's tradition regarding what life is, allow to consider such activity as metabolic."
"On these data, which had accumulated very recently, and the concept of life held in their scientific tradition, they concluded that the results are consistent with the presence of microbial life in the surface of the planet, and have proposed the name Gillevinia straata. to honor the responsibles of the Viking experiment that yielded positive results. Biological nomenclature is an important step forward in a case for life. Formally, it changes the charge of proof: anyone wishing to oppose to it now should publish a discussion showing that Gillevinia straata is in fact an abiotic source of the 1976 observations."
Originally posted by NGC2736
So where do we decide to draw the line for life? Is it confined to what we have here on earth as an example? Is it anything that can propogate? just what does it take to be alive?
1h.) Spamming: You will not post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.