Rover findings indicate stratified lake on ancient Mars

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Just to play the devil's advocate but could such strata be caused by the build up of successive layers of volcanic dust. Laid down over time and exposed by the impact of a meteor strike. On earth, with weather erosion, there would be a difference in appearance I am sure, but these layers would have only wind erosion which would tend to "separate" the layers allowing them to show up better.

a reply to: HiddenWaters
I'm also very ignorant in this subject, but I'd guess that dissolved oxygen can also come from various minerals and chemical processes, same as other gasses that get dissolved in water.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Just to play the devil's advocate but could such strata be caused by the build up of successive layers of volcanic dust. Laid down over time and exposed by the impact of a meteor strike. On earth, with weather erosion, there would be a difference in appearance I am sure, but these layers would have only wind erosion which would tend to "separate" the layers allowing them to show up better.

They think at least some of the uppers layers of Mt. Sharp may have been deposited down by wind-driven methods. However, the analysis of the lower layers from Curiosity suggest that at least those lower layers were deposited in water.

The erosion of the mountain that allows us to see that exposed strata today (however it was deposited) appears mostly due to wind erosion. There are signs of water erosion in the area, too -- such as alluvial fans that seem to have flowed towards the base of the mountain and the floor of the crater in the form of liquid.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

There are very good reasons why those at NASA and elsewhere, do not come out with the latest findings all at once. First amongst these, is that it is necessary for conclusions to be checked, re-checked, and checked again, to make sure they are authentic, as accurate as possible, and not providing an improper picture of things.

Do you remember that fellow who thought there were canals on the surface of Mars? He saw something, came to a conclusion which fit the visible elements he saw, and announced it. If he had taken the time to do better research, think more carefully about it, or improve his scopes some, he would have seen that the likelihood that these features were canals of some sort, was pretty bloody low.

That is but one example. Making incomplete statements or coming to shaky conclusions about what is happening on Mars, could lead to a total collapse of credibility in the mainstream of NASA supporters, making future missions harder to fund, harder to test, less likely to occur at all!

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Ghost147

I think that a sediment rock on Mars is more exciting the "big announcement" of 7 planets around a red dwarf.

I'm just tired of slow announcement of "life on Mars" that is taking forever. Viking data reported evidence that was quickly down played as contamination or something.

 

a reply to: toysforadults

Seems logical. Earth and Mars exchange meteors. Life could have began on Mars and made it's way here.

 

PS - I clipped the guys quote which I have now added back in (the second bolded part). Kind of the whole point of the thread which I messed up!

If its started on mars and ended up here....
HOW, did it start there?!?

a reply to: Miccey

Miccey,

Although there is nothing like conclusive proof, or even anything particularly probative to suggest it, it is entirely possible that life on Earth arrived here on a piece of Mars, broken off in some event or other.

As for how life would have begun on Mars, there is some suggestion amongst astrophysicists and the like that back in deep time, Mars was closer to the Sun than it is, and therefore warmer, with a climate which would permit or promote life forms coming to exist there.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Miccey

As for how life would have begun on Mars, there is some suggestion amongst astrophysicists and the like that back in deep time, Mars was closer to the Sun than it is, and therefore warmer, with a climate which would permit or promote life forms coming to exist there.

Mars does not need to have been closer to the Sun to have had climate conditions that would be suitable to life. If Mars had retained its atmosphere -- even in its current distance from the Sun -- the thicker atmosphere could have been enough to help keep in enough warmth to be well suited to life as we know it on its surface.

Mars -- and even Venus -- are actually in the Habitable Zone of our Sun (by most definitions of "Habitable Zone"). If we were studying our solar system from afar the way we currently do with other exoplanet systems, Venus and Mars today would be considered "Earth Like".

That is, they would be rocky planets in the habitable zone of a their parent star.

a reply to: tinymind

Yes, that works too. But the article explains how it works with water. Then they compare it to known processes here on earth. Around the rim of the “crater” on down the only conclusion that can be drawn that it was water deposited; which is nearly all the way there to saying “life”.

a reply to: wildespace

A "chemical ecosystem" which is what I said they should have called it from the get go. There are complex interactions happening at various places, over time, in Gale Lake. Somehow evidence of oxygen being dissolved in the water happened. Where it came from has not been speculated. My best guess is there will come a day when there will be an announcement of an oxygen atmosphere on Mars.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Yeah, I hear you. It just me whining about how long it is taking! I do like that this is a comprehensive look over years’ worth of data. In that they did not jump the gun.

The canals was a mistranslation of the Latin word “canali” or “gullies” (IIRC). The idea of canals on Mars fired the minds of several astronomers who proposed that there was past intelligent life on Mars. Then telescope technology improved. And it became apparent that they actually were gullies! I guess the Italian astronomer gets a pass on that one! Everybody else get an "epic fail"! lol

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Miccey

Miccey,

Although there is nothing like conclusive proof, or even anything particularly probative to suggest it, it is entirely possible that life on Earth arrived here on a piece of Mars, broken off in some event or other.

As for how life would have begun on Mars, there is some suggestion amongst astrophysicists and the like that back in deep time, Mars was closer to the Sun than it is, and therefore warmer, with a climate which would permit or promote life forms coming to exist there.

Sooo???
Why cant it have started/begun here on earth...????
If there, why not here???

originally posted by: Miccey

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Miccey

Miccey,

Although there is nothing like conclusive proof, or even anything particularly probative to suggest it, it is entirely possible that life on Earth arrived here on a piece of Mars, broken off in some event or other.

As for how life would have begun on Mars, there is some suggestion amongst astrophysicists and the like that back in deep time, Mars was closer to the Sun than it is, and therefore warmer, with a climate which would permit or promote life forms coming to exist there.

Sooo???
Why cant it have started/begun here on earth...????
If there, why not here???

I don't think TrueBrit said anything to refute that Earth's life could have started on Earth. I think he was just pointing out the possibility that it started on Mars then found its way here via meteorites.

a reply to: Miccey

Fair point, and I am not saying that this is what I believe did happen.

All I am saying is that it is possible that it did. I think an awful lot of the necessity for this sort of theoretical thinking, comes from the idea that life did not originate from material which was native to the Earth. Rna did not just form randomly, here, intact, or out of things that were here already, so the thinking goes.

You would have to ask the originators of that idea to explain why they think that.

I understand what your saying, but i cant get my head around
the idea, that life can arise on one planet, but not on another.
What would have made Mars better suited to for life than Earth?

Ive seen this notion elsewere but no one can explain
why?

The planets were hot in the beginning. Mars, being smaller, would have cooled faster than Earth. Mars would have reached a surface temperature low enough to allow life sooner than on Earth. If life spread from planet to planet due to meteor strikes flinging matter from one planet onto another, it's likelier that it moved from Mars to Earth, than visa versa.

originally posted by: Ross 54
The planets were hot in the beginning. Mars, being smaller, would have cooled faster than Earth. Mars would have reached a surface temperature low enough to allow life sooner than on Earth. If life spread from planet to planet due to meteor strikes flinging matter from one planet onto another, it's likelier that it moved from Mars to Earth, than visa versa.

True, but another possibility is that life arose just on Earth and did not ever seed Mars.

Or, if we stipulate for the sake of discussion that Mars does in fact have, or once had, life (an idea that I find highly plausible), that does not necessarily mean that life was seeded from one planet to the other.

That is to say, maybe life independently started on BOTH Mars and Earth, and neither seeded the other.

If we do find life elsewhere in our solar system (whether it be Mars, the clouds of Venus, Enceladus, Titan, Europa, Ceres, or elsewhere), it would be MUCH MUCH more meaningful if that life had a totally independent genesis than the life we have on Earth, because that would suggest that abiogenesis (life arising from non-life) is a common phenomenon -- which would suggest that life would be extremely common in the galaxy.

On the other hand, if life is found on Mars, and that life is found to be similar enough to Earth life to suggest Earth life and Mars life had the same ultimate origin, then that would NOT suggest that abiogenesis is necessarily common. it could still be true that abiogenesis is very very very rare, and other life in the galaxy may also be extremely rare.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Ross 54
The planets were hot in the beginning. Mars, being smaller, would have cooled faster than Earth. Mars would have reached a surface temperature low enough to allow life sooner than on Earth. If life spread from planet to planet due to meteor strikes flinging matter from one planet onto another, it's likelier that it moved from Mars to Earth, than visa versa.

True, but another possibility is that life arose just on Earth and did not ever seed Mars.

Or, if we stipulate for the sake of discussion that Mars does in fact have, or once had, life (an idea that I find highly plausible), that does not necessarily mean that life was seeded from one planet to the other.

That is to say, maybe life independently started on BOTH Mars and Earth, and neither seeded the other.

If we do find life elsewhere in our solar system (whether it be Mars, the clouds of Venus, Enceladus, Titan, Europa, Ceres, or elsewhere), it would be MUCH MUCH more meaningful if that life had a totally independent genesis than the life we have on Earth, because that would suggest that abiogenesis (life arising from non-life) is a common phenomenon -- which would suggest that life would be extremely common in the galaxy.

On the other hand, if life is found on Mars, and that life is found to be similar enough to Earth life to suggest Earth life and Mars life had the same ultimate origin, then that would NOT suggest that abiogenesis is necessarily common. it could still be true that abiogenesis is very very very rare, and other life in the galaxy may also be extremely rare.

The independent idea sounds more plausible
Imho.
And i am too of the firm belief that
life is abundant in the galaxy.
As how it starts i have no idea.

a reply to: Miccey

The amino acid glycine, along with some of its precursor organic molecules and the essential element phosphorus, were spotted in the cloud of gas and dust surrounding Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by the Rosetta spacecraft, which has been orbiting the comet since 2014. While glycine had previously been extracted from cometary dust samples that were brought to Earth by NASA's Stardust mission, this is the first time that the compound has been detected in space, naturally vaporized.

...

For astrobiology, it's a very important measurement," Altwegg said. "And it's not only life on Earth; the material in comets has been formed in a protostellar cloud, and what could have happened here in our protostellar cloud could have happened everywhere in the universe."

space.com, May 2016 - Building Blocks of Life Found in Comet's Atmosphere.

Precursor molecules can form with sun light and the right chemicals. A comet flies through a cloud heavy in certain chemicals they can combine and freeze. They whir around until they crash on a planet that is warm enough to add energy where the chemicals can react and become organic molecules. It can all start in space and does not need to have started only here on earth.

That was only discovered last year! Astrobiology is a young science but the ideas go back to ancient philosophers. Wikipedia: Panspermia.

I like asking, "Why did it start?" while looking at the night sky!

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Miccey

The amino acid glycine, along with some of its precursor organic molecules and the essential element phosphorus, were spotted in the cloud of gas and dust surrounding Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by the Rosetta spacecraft, which has been orbiting the comet since 2014. While glycine had previously been extracted from cometary dust samples that were brought to Earth by NASA's Stardust mission, this is the first time that the compound has been detected in space, naturally vaporized.

...

For astrobiology, it's a very important measurement," Altwegg said. "And it's not only life on Earth; the material in comets has been formed in a protostellar cloud, and what could have happened here in our protostellar cloud could have happened everywhere in the universe."

space.com, May 2016 - Building Blocks of Life Found in Comet's Atmosphere.

Precursor molecules can form with sun light and the right chemicals. A comet flies through a cloud heavy in certain chemicals they can combine and freeze. They whir around until they crash on a planet that is warm enough to add energy where the chemicals can react and become organic molecules. It can all start in space and does not need to have started only here on earth.

That was only discovered last year! Astrobiology is a young science but the ideas go back to ancient philosophers. Wikipedia: Panspermia.

I like asking, "Why did it start?" while looking at the night sky!

Your quote, basicly says...
It could form ANYWERE the right compounds exist
within the right conditions...

Now im an "evolutionist", so imho, the right compounds
and the right conditions, could have ignited life right here
and on a multitude of other "planets", and when the planet
"evolves" so does life...

The exact materials for life may no longer
exist in its crude form, since the planet
itself evolves..

Life exist else were im not sure in what form though...

Even more water findings have been released

NASA scientists have found a wide diversity of minerals in the initial samples of rocks collected by the Curiosity rover in the lowermost layers of Mount Sharp on Mars, suggesting that conditions changed in the water environments on the planet over time.

The paper primarily reports on three samples from the Pahrump Hills region. This is an outcrop at the base of Mount Sharp that contains sedimentary rocks scientists believe formed in the presence of water. The other sample, called "Buckskin," was reported last year, but those data are incorporated into the paper.

At the base are minerals from a primitive magma source; they are rich in iron and magnesium, similar to basalts in Hawaii. Moving higher in the section, scientists saw more silica-rich minerals. In the "Telegraph Peak" sample, scientists found minerals similar to quartz. In the "Buckskin" sample, scientists found tridymite. Tridymite is found on Earth, for example, in rocks that formed from partial melting of Earth's crust or in the continental crust—a strange finding because Mars never had plate tectonics.

In the "Confidence Hills" and "Mojave 2" samples, scientists found clay minerals, which generally form in the presence of liquid water with a near-neutral pH, and therefore could be good indicators of past environments that were conducive to life. The other mineral discovered here was jarosite, a salt that forms in acidic solutions. The jarosite finding indicates that there were acidic fluids at some point in time in this region.

There are different iron-oxide minerals in the samples as well. Hematite was found near the base; only magnetite was found at the top.

Phys.org, June 12, 2017 - NASA finds evidence of diverse environments in Curiosity samples.

They have named the types of rocks and minerals found. Clays? That is the dead ringer right there. You have neutral and acidic. Probably fresh and briny water (my best guess). All of that around long enough to form the minerals and sedimentary rock.

Everything is screaming one thing: life.

And still the big wait goes on for an official announcement. *sigh* I will take what I can get.

originally posted by: Ross 54
The planets were hot in the beginning. Mars, being smaller, would have cooled faster than Earth. Mars would have reached a surface temperature low enough to allow life sooner than on Earth. If life spread from planet to planet due to meteor strikes flinging matter from one planet onto another, it's likelier that it moved from Mars to Earth, than visa versa.

Mars has lower gravity, no atmosphere. Like the Moon, that makes it easier for a meteorite to cause rocks to be blasted out in space until they fall to Earth as more meteorites.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

It's amazing that we don't even know our earth but we explore mars!