Martian Life Confirmed?

Excerpts from two media reports followed by the abstract:

"AUSTRALIAN scientists claim to have conclusive proof that unusual
microscopic fossils found in a four billion-year-old meteorite from
Antarctica are bacterial life from Mars."
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/st...storyid=816517

"Two Australian scientists have developed new technology to confirm
claims by NASA that a meteorite from Mars found in Antarctica in 1984
contained microscopic fossils from the red planet. [...]

Emeritus Professor Imre Friedmann, now at NASA Ames Research Center in
California, was thrilled by the latest research which confirmed the
space agency's earlier findings.

'The study of Taylor and Barry now presents evidence that the same
features occur in a wide range of bacteria that live on Earth today,'
Prof Friedmann said.

'The tiny structures, chains of crystals of the mineral magnetite, are
comparable to animal skeletons on a microscopic scale.'"
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...E15306,00.html
__________________________________________________ ____

Here's the abstract from the Journal of Microscopy:


Magnetosomal matrix: ultrafine structure may template
biomineralization of magnetosomes

Taylor, A. P., Barry, J. C.

Journal of Microscopy; Feb2004, Vol. 213 Issue 2, p180, 18p

Abstract: The organic matrix surrounding bullet-shaped,
cubo-octahedral, D-shaped, irregular arrowhead-shaped, and truncated
hexa-octahedral magnetosomes was analysed in a variety of uncultured
magnetotactic bacteria. The matrix was examined using low- (80 kV) and
intermediate- (400 kV) voltage TEM. It encapsulated magnetosomes in
dehydrated cells, ultraviolet-B-irradiated dehydrated cells and
stained resin-embedded fixed cells, so the apparent structure of the
matrix does not appear to be an artefact of specimen preparation.
High-resolution images revealed lattice fringes in the matrix
surrounding magnetite and greigite magnetosomes that were aligned with
lattice fringes in the encapsulated magnetosomes. In all except one
case, the lattice fringes had widths equal to or twice the width of
the corresponding lattice fringes in the magnetosomes. The lattice
fringes in the matrix were aligned with the {311}, {220}, {331}, {111}
and {391} related lattice planes of magnetite and the {222} lattice
plane of greigite. An unidentified material, possibly an iron
hydroxide, was detected in two immature magnetosomes containing
magnetite. The unidentified phase had a structure similar to that of
the matrix as it contained {311}, {220} and {111} lattice fringes,
which indicates that the matrix acts as a template for the spatially
controlled biomineralization of the unidentified phase, which itself
transforms into magnetite. The unidentified phase was thus called
pre-magnetite. The presence of the magnetosomal matrix explains all of
the five properties of the biosignature of the magnetosomal chain
proposed previously by Friedmann et al. and supports their claim that
some of the magnetite particles in the carbonate globules in the
Martian meteorite ALH84001 are biogenic. Two new morphologies of
magnetite magnetosomes are also reported here (i.e. tooth-shaped and
hexa-octahedral magnetosomes). Tooth-shaped magnetite magnetosomes
elongated in the [110] direction are reported... [ABSTRACT FROM
AUTHOR]

ISSN: 0022-2720
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2004.01287.x
Accession Number: 11999596
Persistent link to this record:
http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=11999596&db=aph
Database: Academic Search Premier


Ian Goddard's Journal: http://iangoddard.net/journal.htm

Ian Goddard wrote in message . ..
"Two Australian scientists have developed new technology to confirm
claims by NASA that a meteorite from Mars found in Antarctica in 1984
contained microscopic fossils from the red planet. [...]

I would generally be very sceptical with such claims which have come
up before in the past but later proved to be erroneous.

What would be the consequence of such a find anyway? Is it the
suggestion that life on earth originates from Mars ? I find the latter
very implausible. If there is one place in the solar system which is
favourable to develop and sustain life, then it is the earth.
So I really don't know what all the present fuss of finding life on
Mars is all about. Life in the solar system has already been found. It
is right here on earth!

"Thomas Smid" schrieb im Newsbeitrag om...
Ian Goddard wrote in message . ..
"Two Australian scientists have developed new technology to confirm
claims by NASA that a meteorite from Mars found in Antarctica in 1984
contained microscopic fossils from the red planet. [...]

I would generally be very sceptical with such claims which have come
up before in the past but later proved to be erroneous.

What would be the consequence of such a find anyway? Is it the
suggestion that life on earth originates from Mars ? I find the latter
very implausible. If there is one place in the solar system which is
favourable to develop and sustain life, then it is the earth.
I don't know much about this but how did mars look like when life
started on earth? Or even earlier, depending on how long any "seed
rocks" were underway.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

(Thomas Smid) wrote:
I would generally be very sceptical with such claims which have come
up before in the past but later proved to be erroneous.

What would be the consequence of such a find anyway?

A major boost in the "seeding" theory of life origin...
.... and at the same time, a major mystery regarding its ultimate
consequences: some of the stray meteorites from the terrestial
solar system have undoubtedly gone off into interstellar space,
or vice versa. It's now believe, as of the last year or so,
that spores can survive for the extended periods of time in
outer space they would spend in transit.

If even one world has life, eventually an entire galactic
sector's worth of potentially habitable worlds will get it
too.

The other consequence ties right into the issue I was
going to bring up anyhow: the prospect of future settlement
and terraformation of Mars. If anything is still found
there today, that'll raise an ethical issue concerning
a reverse war-of-the-worlds situation. Will the discovery
of still-existing Martian life make illegal any future
effort toward settlement and colonization?

The real issue I wanted to raise is: what about Martian
agriculture? Mars has a light C02 atmosphere. Is this
enough, by itself, to enable plant life to be grown
either directly outside or underneath greenhouses? What's
required in the way of soil chemistry? Irrigation?

The latter issue could get particularly interesting if
it's eventually found that Mars actually has a water
table.

Then you have a world that is essentially a desert,
which was formerly replete with lakes and rivers and
a more habitable climate (and possibly with life),
with a water table.

This is quite similar both to the condition and history
of the Sahara Desert, which itself provides the basis
for the prospect of Earth-based experimental/testing
trial runs at Martian agriculture.

Likewise, the soil issue could get interesting, if it's
discovered that there's STILL bacterial life in the
soil, and of the right kinds needed for agricultural
development.

How long would it take for the atmosphere to develop a
heavy Oxygen component, if agriculture is widely pursued
on Mars?

In article , says...

(Thomas Smid) wrote:
I would generally be very sceptical with such claims which have come
up before in the past but later proved to be erroneous.

What would be the consequence of such a find anyway?

A major boost in the "seeding" theory of life origin...
... and at the same time, a major mystery regarding its ultimate
consequences: some of the stray meteorites from the terrestial
solar system have undoubtedly gone off into interstellar space,
or vice versa. It's now believe, as of the last year or so,
that spores can survive for the extended periods of time in
outer space they would spend in transit.

If even one world has life, eventually an entire galactic
sector's worth of potentially habitable worlds will get it
too.

The other consequence ties right into the issue I was
going to bring up anyhow: the prospect of future settlement
and terraformation of Mars. If anything is still found
there today, that'll raise an ethical issue concerning
a reverse war-of-the-worlds situation. Will the discovery
of still-existing Martian life make illegal any future
effort toward settlement and colonization?

The real issue I wanted to raise is: what about Martian
agriculture? Mars has a light C02 atmosphere. Is this
enough, by itself, to enable plant life to be grown
either directly outside or underneath greenhouses? What's
required in the way of soil chemistry? Irrigation?

The latter issue could get particularly interesting if
it's eventually found that Mars actually has a water
table.

Then you have a world that is essentially a desert,
which was formerly replete with lakes and rivers and
a more habitable climate (and possibly with life),
with a water table.

This is quite similar both to the condition and history
of the Sahara Desert, which itself provides the basis
for the prospect of Earth-based experimental/testing
trial runs at Martian agriculture.

Likewise, the soil issue could get interesting, if it's
discovered that there's STILL bacterial life in the
soil, and of the right kinds needed for agricultural
development.

How long would it take for the atmosphere to develop a
heavy Oxygen component, if agriculture is widely pursued
on Mars?


Its not habitable because there is no protection of the planet,
by way of an atmosphere. UV Radiation, is a good way to sterilize
bacteria. So how would you propose that you put the chicken
prior to the egg?

In article xZyTb.376282$JQ1.70298@pd7tw1no,
Rick Sobie wrote:
Its not habitable because there is no protection of the planet,
by way of an atmosphere. UV Radiation, is a good way to sterilize
bacteria. So how would you propose that you put the chicken
prior to the egg?


The bacteria could live in the soil, or under rocks. Or even under
polar ice.

Rick R.

On 30 Jan 2004, (Thomas Smid) wrote:

"Two Australian scientists have developed new technology to confirm
claims by NASA that a meteorite from Mars found in Antarctica in 1984
contained microscopic fossils from the red planet. [...]

I would generally be very sceptical with such claims which have come
up before in the past but later proved to be erroneous.


The recent thread-leading paper by Taylor and Barry is an continuation
of research on the ALH84001 meteorite that McKay et al (1996) proposed
may contain fossilized magnetotactic bacteria. While counter
hypotheses have been raised and a general consensus tends to favor
them as a standard cautionary protocol, it would not be fair to say
the biogenic hypothesis has been "proved to be erroneous." For
example, Buseck et al, who argue against a biogenic interpretation,
observe that the contents of ALH84001 are "controversial."

Prior to the recent findings of Taylor and Barry, scientists have been
arguing both sides of the ALH84001 debate. For example, Barber and
Scott (2002) and Buseck et al (2001) have argued against the biogenic
hypothesis, while Thomas-Keprta et al (2002) and Friedmann et al
(2001) have argued for a biogenic interpretation. Taylor and Barry's
new findings appear to constitute important advancements in the
analysis of the contents of ALH84001, purportedly satisfying important
additional biogenic-interpretive criteria. We'll have to see how their
new findings play out in this ongoing controversy.


Barber and Scott (2002)
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/10/6556

Buseck, et al (2001)
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/24/13490

Friedmann, et al (2001)
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/5/2176

McKay et al (1996)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Taylor and Barry (2004)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Thomas-Keprta, et al (2002)
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/68/8/3663


Ian Goddard's Journal: http://iangoddard.net/journal.htm

"When we have lived any time, and have been accustomed to the
uniformity of nature, we acquire a general habit, by which we always
transfer the known to the unknown, and conceive the latter to resemble
the former." David Hume

January 30, 2004

Ian Goddard wrote:

The recent thread-leading paper by Taylor and Barry is an continuation
of research on the ALH84001 meteorite that McKay et al (1996) proposed
may contain fossilized magnetotactic bacteria. While counter
hypotheses have been raised and a general consensus tends to favor
them as a standard cautionary protocol, it would not be fair to say
the biogenic hypothesis has been "proved to be erroneous." For
example, Buseck et al, who argue against a biogenic interpretation,
observe that the contents of ALH84001 are "controversial."

Only an idiot would substitute 'caution' and 'controversy' for 'evidence'.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
January 30, 2004

Ian Goddard wrote:

The recent thread-leading paper by Taylor and Barry is an continuation
of research on the ALH84001 meteorite that McKay et al (1996) proposed
may contain fossilized magnetotactic bacteria. While counter
hypotheses have been raised and a general consensus tends to favor
them as a standard cautionary protocol, it would not be fair to say
the biogenic hypothesis has been "proved to be erroneous." For
example, Buseck et al, who argue against a biogenic interpretation,
observe that the contents of ALH84001 are "controversial."

Only an idiot would substitute 'caution' and 'controversy' for 'evidence'.

You're confusing 'evidence' with 'proof'. You can't
ask for evidence of a claim, and then when that
evidence is not a definitive proof, claim there is no
evidence. Evidence is simply that, and can be pro
or con. Scientists generally do not believe things
without some evidence, and when you have a large
controversy such as ALH84001, you have scientists
on both sides of the issue, and EVIDENCE on both
sides of the issue. Which body of evidence you find
collectively more persuasive is a matter of personal
choice and ultimately group consensus.

There was all sorts of evidence the Earth circled the
sun at one time, but it was still a 'controversy', with
people arguing both sides of the issue. Was that
evidence NOT evidence on one day, and then later
somehow BECAME evidence was the controversy
had passed? No, I think not. It was always evidence.
It simply turned out to support the right conclusion.

Bruce

January 30, 2004

Bruce Sterling Woodcock wrote:

Only an idiot would substitute 'caution' and 'controversy' for 'evidence'.

You're confusing 'evidence' with 'proof'.

No I'm not, science is demonstrative, proof is mathematical.

You can't
ask for evidence of a claim, and then when that
evidence is not a definitive proof, claim there is no
evidence. Evidence is simply that, and can be pro
or con.

No, conclusions can be pro and con, an whether pro or con, both require
evidence.

Scientists generally do not believe things
without some evidence

If they claim they don't believe something, or that something is not true, they
are welcome to provide evidence to demonstrate the veracity of their claim, or
refute a particular, but my claim stands, caution and controversy and indeed,
skepticism, and even scientific credentials, are not evidence.

[nonsense snipped]

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net