Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
seeder

Drake Equation on Alien Life Has Been Revised

60 posts in this topic

No it shows microbes potentially have alot more space to thrive underground on Mars than they do on Earth.

Assuming that there is liquid water, sure. Is there? Probably not.

And you really claim to have so much knowledge about geology?

Well golly gee, professor only took a year of it in college.

Well if you really did... you would know that there is no way Mars is ice cold to the core as you claimed. Its thought that because of radioactive decay that the Mantel of Mars is around 1,500 deg. F. This is why such a large percentage of the thick Martian crust falls into a tempurature range that could support life.

Since Mars has only 10% of the mass of Earth and absolutely no magnetic field, all evidence we have now suggests that the core of Mars is cold. It may be warm but we have no evidence that suggests that.

As for food? What do you suppose these deep underground microbes on Earth are "eating"? You do know there is no sunlight right?

I'll tell you since obviously you don't know. They eat the decayed matter of life that lived on the surface. This matter gets mixed in with the water which Earth has lots of.

There was a fun theory a few years ago that some survive on radiation emitted from the Earth's core but radiation levels where they were found at were very low and they were unable to keep them alive in the lab with this "food". I haven't heard a peep about this marvelous discovery in years so I assumed they determined the radiation theory was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing that absence of a magnetic field rules out a planet for life, but the earth has been without a magnetic field many times in geologic history for periods stretching to tens of thousands of years when the poles flipped, and no disturbance of life during those periods has been detected.

If a magnetic field is not absolutely needed, then Venus' slow rotation and Mars' lack of an iron core would not hinder terraformation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, then why no magnetic field? I'm not doubting -- just puzzled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

linked article on Mars ancient internal dynamo, which once generated a magnetic field--

http://redplanet.asu.edu/?p=2035

Mars, being smaller than Earth, presumably cooled sooner, impairing the circulation of the metallic core, and so also, the production of a planet wide magnetic field.

Edited by bison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the second paper made a big splash years ago but has been rejected.

can you please share the relevant details?

If you add up the "if"s you end up with an extremely low probability of being true yet the author uses the false assumptions to actually calculate how much life in on Mars right now.

it was about the possibility, no definitive claims were made there, read it again... don't create a straw-man.... moreover, i shared that paper so you could see the reference re methanogens which do exist in 'freezing' conditions

Sometimes there are negatives and we just have to deal with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drake never met The Duck ,just DONTEATUS ! He would of known for a fact that Mars has a thriving Life underground ! ANd the Secone Best B.B.Q in out Solar system ! :alien::clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you please share the relevant details?

I don't have any. The paper was published around 2000 I think and immediately resulted in interviews and articles in the popular science magazines and web sites. People were expecting a peer-reviewed study on the discovery in a scientific journal but I never saw one. That is usually a silent admission that previous claims were a bit exaggerated or incorrect. I think they managed to get some funding for further study but I haven't been able to find anything from that either.

It's odd because whatever they found sounded very interesting. Perhaps it wasn't as interesting as they had thought.

it was about the possibility, no definitive claims were made there, read it again... don't create a straw-man.... moreover, i shared that paper so you could see the reference re methanogens which do exist in 'freezing' conditions

Yes, they exist. Do they thrive in these conditions? No. Do they do thrive in warmer conditions? Yes. Archaea are tough simple creatures that are hard to kill but need specific conditions to thrive.

Irrelevant. I have not once claimed anything is true or false. I have only been discussing possibilities. Unfortunately when you say "extremely low possibility" fools often equate that as saying something is "impossible". Unlikely and impossible are two very different things. I wish people could get this straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any. The paper was published around 2000 I think and immediately resulted in interviews and articles in the popular science magazines and web sites. People were expecting a peer-reviewed study on the discovery in a scientific journal but I never saw one. That is usually a silent admission that previous claims were a bit exaggerated or incorrect. I think they managed to get some funding for further study but I haven't been able to find anything from that either.

check the date... http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18292

Yes, they exist. Do they thrive in these conditions? No. Do they do thrive in warmer conditions? Yes. Archaea are tough simple creatures that are hard to kill but need specific conditions to thrive.

again you're moving goalposts here... existence, the premise re possibility, is what's being discussed...

you simply came up with improbabilities... to which i simply responded with whether the rover was able to investigate the martian soil for methanogens i.e. we shouldn't conclude anything re what has not yet been investigated

Irrelevant. I have not once claimed anything is true or false. I have only been discussing possibilities. Unfortunately when you say "extremely low possibility" fools often equate that as saying something is "impossible". Unlikely and impossible are two very different things. I wish people could get this straight.

you+really+want+to+try+to+argue+semantics+_ed98f553334c8361a9e9248398c3126a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the date make a difference?

again you're moving goalposts here... existence, the premise re possibility, is what's being discussed...

My goalposts haven't moved. If there is any possibility that there is life miles and miles under the surface of Mars then you are convinced it probably exists since similar life evolved to live in similar conditions on Earth. I remain skeptical that this happened on Mars.

you simply came up with improbabilities... to which i simply responded with whether the rover was able to investigate the martian soil for methanogens i.e. we shouldn't conclude anything re what has not yet been investigated

I agree. I have not made any conclusions whatsoever. I'm simply stating that the probabilities are still extremely low while most people would rather hear about how life on Mars is very likely. If there isn't life in the first mile below the surface then surely it exists a mile deeper, and if not a mile deeper than that. That's moving goalposts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.