|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Life on Mars now 'very probable'
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... Pat Flannery wrote: Anonymous wrote: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0911/24marslife/ It now seems, on closer inspection, that the chances that the Martian meteorite ALH84001 contained traces of ancient Martian life have increased dramatically. I guess this begs the question: how likely was the chance of Transpermia, and are we all Martians? I'll take this a lot more seriously when articles start showing up in "Nature" by scientists who have no connection whatsoever with NASA. Pat Anyway, the appearance of life elsewhere is primarily of interest if it's unconnected with life on Earth, because that would mean we know of two separate occasions that life has appeared, But really the question is 'how does life emerge from geology'? If we should find on Mars microbes which are quite alike to microbes on Earth, what should we conclude? That is was transferred, or a common creative process exists on both planets? .. If life has a common universal process of creation (not a fluke) than we should expect the very first life on any planet to be quite alike. It is quite possible that life....begins...the same way everywhere and it would give us some confidence that its appearance on Earth was not the wildest of possible flukes. Since it appear Mars could only sustain the very simplest or earliest forms of life, it just might give us a very good glimpse into the process of our creation. The discovery of life somewhere else in the Solar system where that life has clear links to life on Earth would be mildly interesting, but not worth getting hugely excited over. If life is found on Mars it's highly unlikely to be from Earth due to gravity of course. And, since Mars is the only other planet we've looked at in this kind of detail, finding life on Mars would mean life is present in the /first two places we looked/. Implying that life is the exact opposite of a fluke, but quite common. I believe this is what we'll end up finding, that life can and will emerge everywhere practical, given enough time. You see the latest math shows that self organized systems take themselves towards higher order. That the more complex a system is the more likely it tends to organize and start hill climbing. In the context of creation, the needed complexity would be found where the system has the greatest complexity, or where there is the most persistent and highest levels of random interactions. Where the system is neither too stable (geology), or too chaotic(gasses), but a balance of the two, which of course means.....water. Water is the source of life as water defines the highest level of complexity possible in a non living system. s Sylvia. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Life on Mars now 'very probable'
Jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... Pat Flannery wrote: Anonymous wrote: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0911/24marslife/ It now seems, on closer inspection, that the chances that the Martian meteorite ALH84001 contained traces of ancient Martian life have increased dramatically. I guess this begs the question: how likely was the chance of Transpermia, and are we all Martians? I'll take this a lot more seriously when articles start showing up in "Nature" by scientists who have no connection whatsoever with NASA. Pat Anyway, the appearance of life elsewhere is primarily of interest if it's unconnected with life on Earth, because that would mean we know of two separate occasions that life has appeared, But really the question is 'how does life emerge from geology'? If we should find on Mars microbes which are quite alike to microbes on Earth, what should we conclude? That is was transferred, or a common creative process exists on both planets? . If life has a common universal process of creation (not a fluke) than we should expect the very first life on any planet to be quite alike. It is quite possible that life....begins...the same way everywhere and it would give us some confidence that its appearance on Earth was not the wildest of possible flukes. Since it appear Mars could only sustain the very simplest or earliest forms of life, it just might give us a very good glimpse into the process of our creation. The discovery of life somewhere else in the Solar system where that life has clear links to life on Earth would be mildly interesting, but not worth getting hugely excited over. If life is found on Mars it's highly unlikely to be from Earth due to gravity of course. There have been some pretty violent events. And, since Mars is the only other planet we've looked at in this kind of detail, finding life on Mars would mean life is present in the /first two places we looked/. What's more important than proving the specific origin is the structure. If the life were to prove to have the same DNA or RNA basis, and, significantly, the same encoding for the nucleic acid bases, then it would be nearly certain that it had a common origin. If the information used in replication were held in a completely different way, then it would be a reasonable inference that the life had originated separately, and it would hardly matter whether it was on the same planet or not. Implying that life is the exact opposite of a fluke, but quite common. I believe this is what we'll end up finding, that life can and will emerge everywhere practical, given enough time. This remains a matter for speculation. We still have no idea how likely life is. You see the latest math shows that self organized systems take themselves towards higher order. That the more complex a system is the more likely it tends to organize and start hill climbing. It's easy to see how life progresses once it has a foot hold. But that first step......? Sylvia. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Life on Mars now 'very probable'
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... Jonathan wrote: And, since Mars is the only other planet we've looked at in this kind of detail, finding life on Mars would mean life is present in the /first two places we looked/. What's more important than proving the specific origin is the structure. If the life were to prove to have the same DNA or RNA basis, and, significantly, the same encoding for the nucleic acid bases, then it would be nearly certain that it had a common origin. If the information used in replication were held in a completely different way, then it would be a reasonable inference that the life had originated separately, and it would hardly matter whether it was on the same planet or not. What if life begins the same way everywhere, then diverges later due to local conditions? Shouldn't the very earliest forms of life also be the most similar from place to place? Self-Organization & Entropy - The Terrible Twins "For a random system, all of these ordered forms should appear, each with its relevant probability (as expected from an ergodic exploration of state space), but is this what occurs ? Animals should therefore occur equally often with one, two, three, four or more legs (or eyes, or even heads ?). The same should apply to chemical compounds and galactic forms - it should be impossible that the same ordered forms appear constantly to the exclusion of all others, yet that is what we see. It seems clear that largely unknown constraints restrict the valid forms to a narrow subset of those possible (occupying a small region of state space in the jargon). "In other words stressed systems follow specific paths through the immense reaches of state space, a directed not ergodic walk." http://www.calresco.org/extropy.htm It's easy to see how life progresses once it has a foot hold. But that first step......? Sylvia. The first step should have the same abstract properties of any phase transition state I think. The first step or point of spontaneous order is found /at/ the transition point. Such as a cloud emerging at the transition from of water to vapor. Or natural selection emerging at the point where neither genetics or mutation dominates, but an unstable equilibrium between the two opposites. Or a democratic society emerging from the competing forces of Laws and Freedom. At the transition between the two is the point where spontaneous hill climbing gets it's ultimate impetus. Think of this spontaneous order resulting from one of the simplest phase transition states, a persistent temperature gradient. That's all it needs, in the abstract, for evolution and spontaneous order to happen.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Life on Mars now 'very probable'
Jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ... Jonathan wrote: And, since Mars is the only other planet we've looked at in this kind of detail, finding life on Mars would mean life is present in the /first two places we looked/. What's more important than proving the specific origin is the structure. If the life were to prove to have the same DNA or RNA basis, and, significantly, the same encoding for the nucleic acid bases, then it would be nearly certain that it had a common origin. If the information used in replication were held in a completely different way, then it would be a reasonable inference that the life had originated separately, and it would hardly matter whether it was on the same planet or not. What if life begins the same way everywhere, then diverges later due to local conditions? Shouldn't the very earliest forms of life also be the most similar from place to place? Even if DNA/RNA are the only viable way of storing reproductive information, and amino-acids the only viable way of constructing the complex chemicals needed for life, the translation of bases into amino acids, and thus proteins, seems essentially arbitrary. So even then, it should be apparent whether the two forms of life have a common origin. Sylvia. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Life on Mars now 'very probable'
Sylvia Else wrote:
Even if DNA/RNA are the only viable way of storing reproductive information, and amino-acids the only viable way of constructing the complex chemicals needed for life, At liquid water temperatures they are common materials throughout the universe so in that temperature range it would be a surprise to encounter greatly different chemistries. There are plenty of other temperature ranges, though. the translation of bases into amino acids, and thus proteins, seems essentially arbitrary. Life on Earth uses more than one encoding scheme, though the differences are in some of the details. Amino acids fall in families with similar folding properties and these families are encoded similarly - The scheme is arranged so single location mutations will tend to produce similarly folded proteins. The translation looks like it started out arbitrary and then was optimized from an arbitrary starting point. So even then, it should be apparent whether the two forms of life have a common origin. Depending on how far back you go. Both could use RNA and that would go back really far. Any base-to-amino translation scheme should give a minimum distance to common ancestor with almost any difference meaning the common ancestor was a long time ago. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Her disc was parental, probable, and diverts out of the plain. | Linette U. Turkel | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 13th 07 11:14 AM |
June new probable launch date | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 3 | March 5th 07 03:13 AM |
Probable launch date of STS-121? | Aaron Lawrence | Space Shuttle | 8 | June 10th 06 01:59 PM |
Extreme life in yellowstone may help search for life on Mars | Ray Vingnutte | Misc | 0 | April 21st 05 06:27 PM |
Genesis crash - probable contamination | World's Fair. | UK Astronomy | 0 | September 8th 04 05:49 PM |