Life on Mars? Fossil find shows it's possible

Life on Mars? Fossil find shows it's possible

news.yahoo.com

*******The title of the article is misleading ********

LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists have found Earth's oldest fossils in Australia and say their microscopic discovery is convincing evidence that cells and bacteria were able to thrive in an oxygen-free world more than 3.4 billion years ago.

The finding suggests early life was sulphur-based -- living off and metabolizing sulphur rather than oxygen for energy -- and supports the idea that similar life forms could exist on other planets where oxygen levels are low or non-existent.

"Could these sorts of things exist on Mars? It's just about conceivable. This evidence is certainly encouragin

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.yahoo.com

1996 - Evidence of Ancient Martian Life in Meteorite ALH84001?www.space.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Life's Building Blocks Found on Surprising Meteorite

We have yet another small sign that we are not alone in the universe. It seems that things are picking up on that front with all the recent discussions and announcements coming from the government.

In another thread it talked about gentle disclosure.. Hopefully this is another part of that theory. I dont understand why it takes the Government this long to drop the maybe it is maybe it isnt attitude.

Fossils from Mars found in the meteorite recovered in Antartica, building blocks of life found on an asteroid, discovery of more planets in the goldilocks zone, the debate about arsenic based life....

/crosses fingers

I found this part of particular interest -

Most significantly, there was very little oxygen around since there were no plants or algae to photosynthesize and produce it, Brasier explained in a telephone interview.

"It's a rather hellish picture," he said. "Not a great place for the likes of us. But for bacteria, all of this was wonderful. In fact, if you were to invent a place where you wanted life to emerge, the early Earth is exactly right."

The researchers are now using the techniques and approaches they used in this study to re-examine other fossil finds that scientists have suggested may also contain evidence for very early life on Earth.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Wow I was going to complain about your thread title, but it's actually Yahoo that has it wrong.

is convincing evidence that cells and bacteria were able to thrive in an oxygen-free world more than 3.4 billion years ago.

Source

It says absolutely nothing about Mars. It states that it's convicing evidence that cells and bacteria were able to thrive in an oxygen-free (EARTH).

This proves nothing about Mars but merely states it's possible.

Misleading title aside...

Good news! I'm one of the few who think we already have evidence of bacterial life on mars from fossils. As well the probes that tested the soil used methods that would actually destroy the very things they were looking for.

Coupled with the building blocks of DNA out there on meteors, it starts to make the "earth seed" theory ring a little more true for me.

Are we one step closer to figuring out "where we came from?"

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


Yeah the title annoyed me as well. Still this is a promising discovery and the fact they are going to go back and test other meteorites does make one wonder if the thought process on this topic by the government has changed..

The panspermia theory is certainely gaining more and more attention because of discoveries like this.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Xcathdra i think you are supposed to print the FULL title of the source article when you post to Breaking Alternative News.

Should read "Life on Mars? Fossil find shows it's possible"

Its all good news but the misleading title is just going to annoy people.

I'm relatively new to this site, but has anyone recently discussed the NASA findings concerning Titan? And Chris McKay's statements concerning the fact that hydrogen molecules are being drawn downward, out of the atmosphere, and being consumed at the surface??

I think this discovery is amazing, and am quite frankly surprised it has not been talked about more not just in the inner circles, but the mainstream media as well.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


Yeah that was an accident and im beyond the 4 hour edit mark.

Sorry (hence the disclaimer in my op).

As usual, I'm the one who thinks that this is backwards. Earth is far more likely to seed/have already seeded this solar system than the other way around.

reply to post by CynicalDrivel



I disagree, I think "neither of the above" is the most likely scenario. Dating back over the years, theyve documented dozens of incidents of ice meteors containing, for lack of a better term, "space jelly" aka "star jelly" at the core. This space jelly has been studied by a variety of respected academia across the world. Simple and complex forms of amino acids and other building blocks of DNA have been observed within this "jelly", however, DNA has not. If the basic building blocks of DNA are being observed within this matter, I dont think it's out of the question to assume its only a matter of time before enough matter entered our prehistoric oceans and....found each other.

I also don't think its irrational to assume that this material is coming from a deeper, much older, part of the universe. A place that has gotten an "earlier start" then our galaxy or universe.

The intergalactic seeding of planets, a favorite theory amongst exobiologists these days, acts in the same way a lake is populated by fish. Fish eggs are dropped from above, in this case by birds that lose that grip on their catch. Regardless, life eventually finds a place that support life. It's only a matter of time.

Thanks for the thread Op. S & F.

What I find most interesting when looking at this article is the "sulfur" aspect.
Most people abducted and/or who came in contact with "Aliens" describe a pungent odor, rotten eggs, ammonia, or something that smells like sulfur.

- The Tricksters: Of the Southwestern United States, Northern Mexico peyote ceremonies. Also in Celtic lore (fairies, gnomes, sylphs etc.)

- The Men in Black -

- Sasquatch (Pacific Northwest), Yeti (Asia), The Skunk Ape (Southeastern U.S.), Momo (Missouri Monster)

-The Greek Gods of Mythology

-Succubi, Incubi, and various demonic manifestations during occult workings

- Poltergeist, ghosts, spirits etc. UFOs, Aliens, Space Brothers etc.

- The Chupacabra of Puerto Rico and South and Central America -

Lightning (this seems to be a clue of some sort, as UFOs are frequently see near powerlines of high voltage)
As Pliny has said: “Lightning and thunder are attended with a strong smell of sulfur, and the light produced by them is of a sulfurous complexion.”

With a small variation one could describe the modern paranormal phenomenon in similar fashion: “UFOs and most paranormal occurrences are often attended with a strong smell of sulfur, and the light produced by them is of a high energy quality, accompanied with a sulfurous complexion.”

Source

"When the beings smiled, the mouth twisted to one side with the effect of a grimace. Their speech was rapid and delicate. They had a polite, gentle demeanor and Wolski felt no fear in their presence.

The beings indicated to Wolski that he should take off his clothes, and one of them helped him undo his shirt buttons. Facing him less than two meters away, one of the beings held in each hand a gray disc shaped object that seemed to be attached to the hand by something like a suction pad.

The discs were vibrating and emitting a dull humming sound. Wolski was positioned with one side facing towards the entity holding the discs, then with his back towards him, and finally with the other side. Wolski's arms were raised alternately by the entities, whose fingers were very cold. During the process he smelled an odor similar to that of burning sulfur; a smell that lingered in his clothing for days afterwards."

Source

(That account above,if true,Creeps the hell outta me! )

Now other than say the immaterial/spiritual/extra-dimensional aspect of accounted phenomena it would allow some reasonable explanation & insight for some of these "physical" beings either sulfur based and/or living in a sulfur rich environment ( Subterranean-which many reports & theories corroborate in my opinion ) that is just my take on what I know and have studied.

Either way,I believe we are moving towards "something" and information has been leaking out at an increased rate in the past couple of years ...Now whether that something be a false-flag type scenario or the possibility of it being 100% genuine is anyone's guess.

This could also be used to theorize that some of these entities were here before modern man,originating and sustaining life based off of arsenic and/or sulfur rather than oxygen-based life forms?
Keep an open mind.

Anything & everything is possible.

Thanks for sharing this. For information on how possible can life be. I always love reading articles like these.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
We have yet another small sign that we are not alone in the universe.

I'm not sure how finding another unusual fossil on Earth is a sign that there is other life in the universe. Connect those dots for me.

If you need further explanation as to why evidence of sulfur consumption, rather than oxygen, is significant in terms of the potential for supporting life, what's the point?

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Xcathdra
We have yet another small sign that we are not alone in the universe.

I'm not sure how finding another unusual fossil on Earth is a sign that there is other life in the universe. Connect those dots for me.

Our entire concept of "life" is based on the life we are familiar with. All living things on this planet are adapted to survive on Earth, and we all share basic commonalities.

Finding fossils that suggest life was on this planet occured prior to it becoming what we are used to is huge. It tells us that the concept of the "goldilocks zone" is not absolute anymore. It is telling us that there is life that is capable of surviving on a planet that can be the complete and total opposite of Earth.

The general thought is Mars is lifeless because of the enviornment. Applying the information from the recent fossil discoveries, the chances of life being on Mars, or other planets in the solar system, just made a 100% jump, going from not possible to ooops, we were wrong on that answer.

'Cause it's next. 'Cause we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The general thought is Mars is lifeless because of the enviornment. Applying the information from the recent fossil discoveries, the chances of life being on Mars, or other planets in the solar system, just made a 100% jump, going from not possible to ooops, we were wrong on that answer.

So you have it figured out how life started on Earth, so if you find a similar environment someplace else, you just assume that life will automatically happen there, too. Because all you need is the right environment, and... poof! There's life.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The general thought is Mars is lifeless because of the enviornment. Applying the information from the recent fossil discoveries, the chances of life being on Mars, or other planets in the solar system, just made a 100% jump, going from not possible to ooops, we were wrong on that answer.

So you have it figured out how life started on Earth, so if you find a similar environment someplace else, you just assume that life will automatically happen there, too. Because all you need is the right environment, and... poof! There's life.

For a person who couldnt connect the dots, I find your condescending attitude hilarious. Also, no Ihave not figured it out, the scientists in the linked article figured it out.

What it means is the theories we have developed on what life is, what life needs to survive, how it works within its enviornment is not an absiolute when compared to the rest of the galaxy. As I said, we are looking for life as if it was from earth.

We look in the goldilock zones of other planets because that is where ours is located.
We look for water, because life on earth requires it.
We look for planets within a temp range based on earth.

When earth was coming together, it was inhospitable to life as we know it. Runaway green house gas, massive fluxes in heat and cold, little to no water. Essentially it means that, again, we are going to need to redefine the parameters on what life is and where it can survive.

The scientific door that this will open will be huge.

Out of curiosity why the attitude? I didnt write the article, and its safe to assume that you nor I have all the answers. Since we have never been to another planet in person, let alone to another solar system, its safe to assume that we are going to get things wrong because of what we compare them to.

Just FYI having noticed a few comments avout the title, MSNBC had the same story where they quoted Martin Brasier of Oxford University stating that this evidence makes the idea of life on Mars more conceivable. Not sure how to add links so i will just copy and paste the web address.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

"Could these sorts of things exist on Mars? It's just about conceivable. This evidence is certainly encouraging and lack of oxygen on Mars is not a problem," said Martin Brasier of Oxford University, who worked on the team that made the discovery."

Wow Yahoo looks like it has the exact same story and quote.....anyways they got the name idea from that professor, guess I should have read the yahoo story before I posted this as if I was supplying something new.

reply to post by PerfectPerception


Agreed. Also another name for sulphur is brimstone - which is associated with hell and as you say ghosts and the supernatural.

just saying

reply to post by seeker1977



its cool.. I did the same thing and asked a mod to update the title lol.


Also, here is some more info that relates closely to this topic.
Team Claims It Has Found Oldest Fossils

A team of Australian and British geologists have discovered fossilized, single-cell organisms that are 3.4 billion years old and that the scientists say are the oldest known fossils on earth.

Their assertion, if sustained, confirms the view that life evolved on earth surprisingly soon after the Late Heavy Bombardment, a reign of destruction in which waves of asteroids slammed into the primitive planet, heating the surface to molten rock and boiling the oceans into an incandescent mist. The bombardment, which ended around 3.85 billion years ago, would have sterilized the earth’s surface of any incipient life.

The claim is also a new volley in a long-running conflict over who has found the oldest fossil.

The new microfossils are described in Sunday’s issue of Nature Geoscience by a team led by David Wacey of the University of Western Australia and Martin D. Brasier of the University of Oxford. The fossils were found in sandstone at the base of the Strelley Pool rock formation in Western Australia.

click link for entire story.

reply to post by Xcathdra



Most of the time on discussions concerning these types of topics, people like Blue Shift refute openly discussing even the possibility of alternate forms of life based on their religious viewpoints.

You may have seen this article already, but if you haven't, it will be a pretty interesting read. It's concerning the fluctuating ethenes and hydrogen levels they're observing on Titan...

www.ciclops.org...