It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA team cites new evidence that meteorites from Mars contain ancient fossils

page: 3
45
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
duplicate post

[edit on 6-5-2010 by Hadriel]




posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Hadriel
 


Chemistry.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hadriel
Ok just stop right there. Where is the evidence that suggests this rock in fact came from mars? How could anyone know that


See page 2 post 2

-E-



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Antor
 


lol I know, that really kind of cracks me up actually. Considering their book, Genesis, says that God created life on EARTH. No mention of Mars, other planets, moons or solar systems. They've been backtracking ever since the days of Copernicus and Galileo.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
ITS ABOUT TIME!!! major kudos to nasa for growing some backbone.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
S&F! Great thread, I'll holla at it later with my own information, I already knew about this.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterE
[

This meteorite is from 4 billion years ago... That is ALOT of time for bacteria to evolve to something meaningful

[edit on 6-5-2010 by MysterE]


Wow! As excited as I was about even just the strong evidence for microbial life to be on Mars NOW, I was even more excited when you said this because I hadn't have even realized that, yes, this meteorite has evidence of 4 billion year old life. That life has aged 4 BILLION years!
(evolutionary wise, of course). This is extremely exciting indeed. I will definitely be following this one.

(The conspiracy theorist in me thinks they will admit it's life, without a doubt, but then present us with the idea that that life was wiped out some time ago.)



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Mars even tho its dead right now . Or a planet known as us people who study it call it the little red one in between the other 2 may be fun to send some projectors to scan the layers of top soil to see if any kind of bugs could have apread on mars in the last 40 000 years. But I do not see any hard proof of any bugs yet . And if there was bugs . They would have only lasted until whatever took out there oceans and weather 203/e Climate. I think that mars could have had a chance of life but it was only around locations that had sunlight The North and South Pole would be in perpetual light





[edit on 6-5-2010 by AndersonLee]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
So a rock that's been here for thousands of years with exposure to the elements of this earth is said to be proof of life from Mars? Is it not possible that life never existed on the rock until it came here? I won't doubt it's a rock from Mars but to say it had life on it to begin with is a reach. The rock was here for thousands of years before it was found. Show me a rock that one of the land rovers already on the planet have sent back with life on it and then I'll believe NASA.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by novastrike81]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
There was not a good chance that mars temperatures could support bugs right now from my understanding of mars Or at least from my math its not even smear chance . maybe 2 billion of a chance. there is no evidence for life on mars from what I have looked at. Evidence that life could have once lived on mars is another question . Maybe this could explain if there was small bugs back then . well without liquid water humans can never live . But mars life may have once lived water free . But that is still debatable . And it would have been sort of like small insects or something for around a few million or thousand years



[edit on 6-5-2010 by AndersonLee]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 


You need to read the sources the OP has posted and the background on this.

This isn't simple speculation. A lot of hard science has been done on this rock.

And the scientific evidence is pointing towards fossilised Martian bacteria.

For example:

Critics had said that the magnetites could have just as easily existed without bacteria or biology -- that they sometimes form as a result of the shock and searing heat that could come, for instance, from an asteroid strike. But in the recent paper, Thomas-Keprta, an expert in the use of electron beam technology to look inside rocks, reported that the purity of the magnetites made that explanation impossible.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by AndersonLee
 


And a quote for you:

For instance, NASA planetary scientist Carol Stoker said that NASA's Phoenix lander -- which touched down near the Martian north polar region in 2008 -- found conditions that were harsh but even today suitable for life. Stoker, who was a co-investigator for several instruments on the Phoenix, said that data sent back met predetermined criteria that would indicate that the area could have supported Martian life even in recent times.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 



Amen brotha!

-e-



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza
reply to post by AndersonLee
 


And a quote for you:

For instance, NASA planetary scientist Carol Stoker said that NASA's Phoenix lander -- which touched down near the Martian north polar region in 2008 -- found conditions that were harsh but even today suitable for life. Stoker, who was a co-investigator for several instruments on the Phoenix, said that data sent back met predetermined criteria that would indicate that the area could have supported Martian life even in recent times.



That's nice but that's only one person and the majority of the astrobiology community is not convinced, as am I, about life on Mars. A quote for you:

From Mary Voytek, director of NASA's astrobiology program -

She said, however, that the astrobiology community as a whole remained unconvinced of their findings, in part because "the bar is so high." She also said it was still not proved that any possible microfossils on the meteorites had come from Mars, rather than forming as contaminants after the meteorites landed on Earth. In addition, all the Martian meteorites consist of hard igneous rock; the more fragile sedimentary rock, which is most likely to contain sign of life, falls apart before reaching Earth.


So unless they can prove those microbe's are on Mars, which is doubtful since they've had two rovers up there for 6 years with no real proof, than it's safe to assume that this isn't anything more than people getting their hopes up.


MBF

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
What gets me is how they KNOW that a meteorite came from Mars when we have never returned a rock from there. I think they are assuming too much.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Nice with a rock but I was wondering what this could be, or could it be anything at all.




posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
The Nasa team need new jobs. Seriously, what kind of moron would get in front of a crowd on a panel and present 15 year old (to us) information. They really do think we are a bunch of dumbasses... Maybe we are. Maybe I am because this riddle was let out long ago. 15 more years of looking at a turdwidget embedded into a rock?

Why not bring a nice fresh cut rack of ribs to the surface of Mars near the equator and park a rover in front of it on live cam for a couple weeks? If there's only bones left, the answer is clear and clearly cheaper a conclusion.

By the way are eggs bad or good for you? Anyone know yet? Flipping scientists.


It's time to halt Nasa's funding completely. Really now, can't even THEORETICALLY get to the moon with a month's notice, 50 years later.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by samureyed
If they do have evidence, which it quite possible, I really don't see the harm in disclosing it to the public. Don't get me wrong, it is a big deal, but many other "big deals" happen around the globe and are quickly shrugged off by the masses.



uhhhhh, I thought the meteorite rock from mars with the fossilized micro-bacteria on/in it was the evidence...

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Odessy]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Quantom
 


that is just a reflextion....
2nd line



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Odessy
 


I suppose I should have said proof instead of evidence. Good catch.




McKay's team didn't claim it had definitive proof that the meteorites they are studying -- which can be identified as Martian because the gases inside them match the Martian atmosphere -- contain the remains of living organisms. Rather, the researchers described their re-energized confidence as emerging from a process of nitty-gritty science, based on inference, simulated testing and a kind of interplanetary forensics.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join