Talk:Life on Mars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Mars, an attempt to improve and standardise articles related to Mars. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Older comments 2 GA nomination 3 Formaldehyde on Mars 4 Presence of water on Mars 4.1 Recent discovery of fluids flowing on Mars 5 Possible Martian sculptures 6 Sorry for the confusing edits 7 Requested move 7.1 Survey 7.2 Discussion 8 Should move Viking results from "History" to "Modern" section 9 AC Clark 10 On ALH84001 11 Recent discoveries 12 Do not revert reasonable edits without providing a reason 13 Oppurtunity to create New Article on terminology of life on other planets (NOT LITTLE GREEN MEN!) 14 "Puddles" of Water Sighted on Mars 15 Gillevinia straata 16 Deep Caverns 17 Regolith vs Soil 18 Trees on Mars 19 Green man 20 Whewell's views about life on Mars

[edit] Older comments

It was my understanding that the controversy about "canals" arose from a mistranslation of an Italian description of "channels," which aren't inherently manmade as canals are. I'm not certain of the provenance of this story, so I'm leaving it aside for someone more knowledgeable to perhaps include. Vivacissamamente 02:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Moved a bit here, as it makes no sense:

Evidence of such life would tend to bolster the theory of evolution by providing "another example" of a planet where life came out of inorganic materials without divine intervention. Theologians may be hoping that proof of a barren Mars will bolster the commonly-held view that life was specially created by God on the earth (see Evolution and creationism).

Evolution is not synonymous with abiogenesis, so the first paragraph is ill-informed.

The absence of life on Mars would not prove anything particular about life on Earth.

The search for life on Mars is a scientific investigation: philosphers and theologians are distinctly secondary onlookers, not participants, and so have been moved from the topic paragraph to the end. - Nunh-huh 20:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If there is life on Mars, or even if there was and is no longer life on Mars, the ruling class will never alow that information to seep out. The broad masses of people must be kept in a placid, perpetually fearful state in order to be better controlled. Any challenge to religious doctrine will be severly repressed, as a challenge to religious orthodoxy is the same as a challenge to political control. Meanwhile our rulers will take on the "burden" of knowing whether or not life exists elsewhere. 165.155.110.74 13:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)pcl

---

Just an odd thought, organisms similar to those on earth could easily be possible, such as an endolith which doesn't require oxygen or sunlight, and could survive with only the minerals within the rocks in the martian crust...I don't have scientific evidence, it's just a thought I've thrown out into cyberspace. I guess I can already see a problem with my "theory": what does an endolith evolve from? Does that thing also have the ability to survive or exist on Mars? I'm open to questions, comments, and critisism. - QuiGonJinn18:42:20 (MST), February 18, 2004

• We have good evidence Mars in the distant past was quite wet and warmer than it is now. Life is thought to have begun on Earth soon after conditions for it were right. If life began on Mars also, when it was warm and wet, it may have adapted to cooler and drier conditions, and persisted in rocks and soil under the surface. Jonathunder 19:01, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

---

"Life on Mars" was also a short-lived (only one year) toy series from LEGO. 16:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

The final section seems poorly worded to me; a political science professor who claims he knows about martian life via remote viewing certainly is not a part of "academia", at least as far as life on Mars goes. Maybe if it was about who would win the presidential elections of 2008. Titanium Dragon 04:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

I removed this article from the good article nominations page because it lacks an adequate lead section, and also omits a major facet of the topic by neglecting to discuss in any detail the hugely important case of the ALH84001 meteorite. It also needs a lot more about the Viking tests - two of the three tests gave positive results, the third was inconclusive, so there needs to be much more about the subsequent analysis which concluded that the positive results were not in fact due to life. Worldtraveller 21:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formaldehyde on Mars

The ME PFS has been back in operation since November last year.[1] so the text has been updated. --Denoir 20:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• fair enough; my bad. Mlm42 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presence of water on Mars

User 146.230.128.29 has inserted a paragraph consisting of speculation dressed up as statements of fact, without quoting sources. This edit is not NPOV and not verifiable (and poorly written), and I suggest we delete it - I will do so if no one objects. Example - "There is life sustaining water on Mars" is at odds with statements elsewhere in the article which claim no evidence has been found for water on Mars now, although it may have been present in the past, and which quote their sources. Example - "1 in 10 million microbes can survive collisions" - what type of collisions, and what is the evidence for this statistic ? Example - "Earth and Mars have probably cross pollinated many times in the past 5 billion years" - what evidence or source if there for this statement ? Example - "Scientists have discovered that there are pockets of ice near the Martian equator" - what evidence or source is there for this statement ? GeraldH 09:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• i agree, and have reverted it. Mlm42 14:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent discovery of fluids flowing on Mars

Just to nip any speculation in the butt: Recently scientists found evidence for some **fluid** flowing across the surface of Mars see here: [2] and here: [3]. Especially the last article on news.bbc.co.uk suggests that scientists think that liquid carbon dioxide might be the cause of this. Apparently liquid CO2 is thought to exist on Mars. However, I consider this highly unlikely based on this article: [4]. In the graph of carbon dioxide on this page it can be seen that to get liquid CO2 you need a pressure of at least (approx.) 8bar-abs. As far as I know such pressures are not common on Mars ;-). At lower pressures gaseous CO2 will change into solid CO2 (see [5]),this happens at -78°C @ 1bar-abs.

So, before somebody starts suggesting CO2 to be the cause I would suggest they make a very good case for that. Just my €0.02 Mausy5043 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Martian sculptures

Please check the "see also" link to Possible Martian Sculptures. I think the article is seriously flawed, and have started a discussion about it. Perhaps it should not be linked from this article.

LjL 22:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for the confusing edits

I have reverted the "illegal" copy/paste move of this article to Life on Mars (scientific theory), and created Life on Mars (disambiguation). I think each article now has its correct edit history and talk page history.--Srleffler 04:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should move Viking results from "History" to "Modern" section

The [Viking_biological_experiments | Viking experiments] were after all the first experiments looking for Martian life. And I gather the "labeled release" experiment has never been obseleted by subsequent observations. -- KarlHallowell 03:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AC Clark

Why is he in and not some scientist? He is not more qualified than most other people.--Stone 10:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It got a lot of attention, because of his high profile, so it's something that casual readers of this article might be expecting to see. I almost removed it, but I don't think the wording gives it too much weight. - DavidWBrooks 17:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing was a little harsh, but to move it to a seperate section or combine it with a few lines to the article about the "spiders" seen on mars. These are dark dust particle from geysers looking like giant spiderson the lighter sand of mars.--134.76.234.75 17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrmmm, I went ahead and deleted it. I don't think idle speculation even by famous people really warrants inclusion. Something like the Cydonia/"face on Mars" stuff is worth mentioning briefly due to how widespread it is. I won't get into an edit war, if Clarke sneaks back in, but I really don't see what that adds. -- KarlHallowell 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On ALH84001

An anon recently added this claim on the ALH meteorite: "This explanation was disproved, however, and it was discovered that the worm-like appearance of the fossils was due to the coating of gold on the samples for viewing under a microscope (without the gold it appeared very rough, square, and generally more rock-like)." This is without a source, and while this argument has been made, McKay et al. seem to have controlled for it: "McKay and his co-workers tested for these kinds of artificial features by examining other rock samples besides ALH 84001 that had been treated exactly the same as the ALH 84001 samples with the bacteria shapes." [6] I'm not sure this belongs here at all, as it is not even in the ALH article itself, but if it does, it certainly needs a better summary than the above -- which I have removed for now.--Eloquence* 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent discoveries

Could some please mention the article that was recently published in "Geophysical Research Letters" (30th January 2007) that claimed current robots do not dig deep enough? - User:Vcxzfdsa

[edit] Do not revert reasonable edits without providing a reason

FayssalF, please do not revert edits that have a reason provided without giving a reason for the revert. I believe that the TV series might be looked up often because it is currently running. While I am fine with "Life on Mars" returning this article and not the talk page, since this one is certainly the most wanted, I believe a direct link is in order. Please see Help:Reverting, WP:AGF and for this specific edit WP:D. --84.178.83.115 19:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience. The revert wasn't part of AGF. However, i apologize. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess being an IP adress editor gets some deserved scepticism about my edits. --84.178.94.141 18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

DavidWBrooks, please do not change the redirect back to the state it was in February. Once again, my rationale is that the other article is bigger and arguably gets the same amount of hits as this page (it also seems that more edits were made on the TV series page, arguably showing a higher interest), since one is an important scientific question that gets into spotlight from time to time, the other is a quite popular british TV series. So it might even be considered to redirect "Life on Mars" on the disambig instead of this page, if the TV series remains popular after the first run of all planned 16 episodes. --84.178.105.220 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I missed that it was discussed here; my apologies.

I made the change because it's bad to have overlapping redirects - the TV show is also on the disambig page, so we're telling people two different ways to find the same thing. But if you feel the show is popular enough to warrant the special mention, fine. (This could cause a problem if somebody else decides some other reference is also important enough to need special attention, then it gets cluttered and the disambig page becomes redundant. But I don't think that will happen here.) - DavidWBrooks 20:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppurtunity to create New Article on terminology of life on other planets (NOT LITTLE GREEN MEN!)

Organisms on Mars are referred to as Martian. What are organisms (e.g bacteria) on the other planets referred to as?

I have often been curious about this, Wikipedia only cites Jovian as life on Jupiter. Where can the OFFICIAL information be found?

I may have heard the terms Venetian (Venus), Plutonian (Pluto) and Neptunian (Neptune) used in various books. However on Wikipedia none are mentioned and the latter is referred to only as a fictional race in Futurama!

I am just curious for myself, although other people might be as well. So this could be a good opportunity for a Wikipedia user who is knowledgable in Astronomy and Grammer, to perhaps create an article/list or contribute this information to other articles.

Please could you let me know if anyone decides to do this as I would be most interested, thankyou. Ryan4314 05:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No opinion about a new article on the terminology. However, here's the adjectives for each planet:

• Mercury: Mercurian (a redirect)
• Venus: Venusian
• Earth: Terrestrial, Terran, Tellurian
• Mars: Martian
• Jupiter: Jovian
• Saturn: Saturnian
• Uranus: Uranian
• Neptune: Neptunian (this is the real term, not just the Futurama race)
• Pluto: Plutonian

These can be found on each planet's article, under "Adjectives" in the infobox. -kotra 00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So there's no official adjective for Uranus then? And BTW, I don't believe that an article/list for adjective forms of planets would be a very good idea, considering how few have names other than "[name of star] b" or something similar, and most of those being the eight planets of the Sol system. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't need an article anyway, as the Ajective is mentioned in every planets info box. Also "Uranian" is the name used on the articles info box. Ryan4314 15:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I forgot Uranus. I've added it to my previous post now. -kotra 21:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Puddles" of Water Sighted on Mars

Can somebody work this in, I wouldn't know how to: [7]Turk brown 11:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

in an interesting twist to this story, the work is done by the son of gilbert levin - the guy that claimed that the viking landers found life on Mars, sbandrews (t) 11:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There are now multiple articles with indications that there is plenty of frozen water on Mars. For example, see Astrobiology Magazine that states that "The amount of water trapped in frozen layers over Mars' south polar region is equivalent to a liquid layer about 11 metres deep covering the planet." And note that Solarviews points out the highest recorded temperature on Mars was 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Thus it is likely that within 30 degrees latitude of the equator the ice melts. Finally, type in "martian water flows" into google -- and see what shows up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunSw0rd (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 July 2007

yes - but all this is included in this article already in the water section - and btw it isn't ice melting that is the issue, its whether liquid water is stable on Mars' surface due to the low atmospheric pressure bringing the water above its tripple point and so evaporating, sbandrews (t) 20:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah but that is not the only consideration (although it is a valid one.) For example, here on Earth there is a liquid subterranean lake in Antarctica called Lake Vostok which is 2 1/2 miles below the surface. It is possible that Mars may also contain subsurface liquid water, although it is likely that such conditions would be uncommon.

A second consideration is that subsurface water may be frozen much of the time and then melt during the warm seasons but, being subsurface, it will not quickly evaporate.

A third consideration is that there is earth life that can survive being frozen into the ice and then when the ice melts, the life goes on (some Notothenioids.) This is demonstrated by certain fish. If there is (or was) life on Mars, good places to look would be Tharsis and Elysium -- since those are volcanic areas and have had subterranean heat sources. And of course lichens on Earth can survive under very low temperatures and very little water.

All in all very interesting data, and giving us a much different perspective than 10 or 20 years ago when it was assumed that geologic "flows" must be due to liquifying carbon dioxide -- since it is now believed that there is very little frozen carbon dioxide on Mars. SunSw0rd 13:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The *puddles* paper has been withdrawn after someone pointed out the area involved was on a crater wall :D [8], enjoy sbandrews (t) 17:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not surprising to me. Of course, I was referring to "flows" not puddles, see here. SunSw0rd 20:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gillevinia straata

I've just come across this page, which rather POVly asserts that there is indeed life on Mars -- the page's title is the proposed name of the bacteria supposedly found there. I've added a "Factual accuracy disputed" template to it: can an editor familiar with the issue at hand have a look over there and see if there's anything worth saving and merging into this article, and nom it for deletion if not? Thanks! -- simxp (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deep Caverns

Recently some very dark circular areas have shown up on Martian photos. From this official NASA site we see this statement: "Black spots have been discovered on Mars that are so dark that nothing inside can be seen. Quite possibly, the spots are entrances to deep underground caves capable of protecting Martian life, were it to exist. The unusual hole pictured above was found on the slopes of the giant Martian volcano Arsia Mons. The above image was captured three weeks ago by the HiRISE instrument onboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter currently circling Mars. The holes were originally identified on lower resolution images from the Mars Odyssey spacecraft..."

Also, here is a scientific paper discussing these "holes": go here.

Interesting, yes? Follow the links to see the photos. SunSw0rd 20:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See this article here as well. SunSw0rd 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Included in Mars#Geography, could well do with some discussion here too though, regards sbandrews (t) 21:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regolith vs Soil

Soil is a naturally occurring, unconsolidated or loose material on the surface of the earth, capable of supporting life. Regolith is a layer of loose, heterogeneous material covering solid rock. Who is insinuating that there is knowledge of life on Mars? No one has proved that there is life on Mars or if Mars's surface could support Earthly life. Why is the term "soil" used rather than the correct terminology of regolith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.16.173 (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trees on Mars

This section appears to be original research and should be removed if references from reliable sources aren't added soon. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --El Ingles (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed, per WP:NORand WP:V Jeepday (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that it's information published by JPL and Malin Space Science Systems, it's not exactly original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetreesonmars (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are published by JPL and Malin Space Science Systems. Your interpretation of them is not. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Green man

I've removed the section on the "figure" in the NASA picture. Put it back if you like but it belongs in a section on spoofs, if anywhere. I admit the cropped picture looks impressive but the actual photograph puts this into perspective. http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/207495main_Spirit.jpg Robertcornell68 (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It has caused some waves in the press, was in yesterdays The Times (amongst others) and is on today's front page of the BBC news online.--Alf ^melmac 11:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's typical of the British press' appalling science coverage. The published image gives no sign of scale. The whole picture has bits of the Mars Rover in shot and clearly shows that the man is about the size of Action Man (or GI Joe) if that. I stand by my edit. Robertcornell68 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the size of the form in question is evidently very small when the whole picture is shown. Life though comes in many sizes from the microscopic upwards, the newspapers are reporting that some are taking this as evidence of life on Mars. I in no way disagree with you that 'it's only a small rock for goodness sake', but in the spitit of neutrality, we report citeable, verifiable info on the topic.--Alf ^melmac 11:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, try this: the source quoted is the BBC article. - A magnified version of the picture, posted on the internet, appears to some to show what resembles a human form among a crop of rocks.

While some bloggers have dismissed the image as a trick of light, others say it is evidence of an alien presence. - It doesn't even name the site it was published on. Since when have "some bloggers" or "others" been acceptable sources. It's sad if Wikipedia has higher standards than the BBC or the Times but we do. This paragraph is not sourced and should be removed. Robertcornell68 (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've transfered the BBC cite to 'cite news' style and added The Times and The Daily Telegraph online articles.--Alf ^melmac 12:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You've convinced me. I've added some direct quotations to give the article more substance. Robertcornell68 (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your last edit. Please see WP:POINT. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. I apologise. Some people can't give up cocaine. I have a weakness for sarcasm. That doesn't change the fact that all three are secondary sources. There is no serious scientific debate on this issue and it doesn't belong in a scientific article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertcornell68 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs here either and if there's no additional coverage in the next week or so I'd support removing the section on the basis of WP:RECENTISM. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with that, I did have an issue with it being removed on the grounds that it was a "spoof", when it clearly is not.--Alf ^melmac 14:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little shocked to find this reference in wikipedia in what is supposed to be a serious article. The figure in question is only a few cm high, and must be really patient - since its in a color picture, it means that it sat through 3 black and white photographs, plus the transmit time in between each one, plus the time to change the color filter. For a fuller explanation, check out the Planetary Society's analysis: http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001305/. Can someone point out to me what standards allow newspaper accounts of blog postings to be used as sources in wikipedia? Dtolman (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whewell's views about life on Mars

The article implies to the causual reader that Whewell suggested that there was life on Mars in is "Of the Plurality of Worlds" publication. However, it is my understanding, that rather than arguing in favour of "life on Mars" he actually agued against the possibility. I've been unable to find a copy of his book to review personally, but there is a discussion of it at the University of Chicargo Press's website here: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14318.ctl . Hope this helps. 131.227.74.134 (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)