PDA

View Full Version : Given the current rumors about water....



Drakheim
2004-Mar-01, 08:26 PM
If in fact it dose exist underground.. what do you think the likelihood of life developing on that planet above bacteria and other single celled organisms would be?

snabald
2004-Mar-01, 08:35 PM
Wouldn't chances for microbes be pretty good if there was water?

ToSeek
2004-Mar-01, 08:42 PM
On Earth, water and life are pretty much equivalent: if you have one, you have the other.

Drakheim
2004-Mar-01, 08:43 PM
http://www.boomspeed.com/zarflat/oO.gif Microbes are single celled organisms.

But yes the chance of them developing are (in my opinion) high in a water environment. I was thinking along the lines of basic plants or worms.

mike alexander
2004-Mar-01, 09:36 PM
Being a bit conservative, I would rather say that IF liquid water is found AND evidence of life is likewise found, THEN the hypothesis 'where there's water, there's life' is substantially strengthened.


And of course I want to find living things. One of the reasons I hold back (less disappointment).

Demigrog
2004-Mar-01, 09:36 PM
Given the environmental changes caused by life on Earth, I'd expect to see signs of life from orbit if there was anything resembling a plant. Anything using the sun for energy should be visible, particularly as seasonal changes that dramatically alter temperatures and available sunlight should also dramatically alter living organisms.

Of course, if life is very limited in scope we might simply be overlooking the signs.

carolyn
2004-Mar-01, 09:48 PM
Being a bit conservative, I would rather say that IF liquid water is found AND evidence of life is likewise found, THEN the hypothesis 'where there's water, there's life' is substantially strengthened.


And of course I want to find living things. One of the reasons I hold back (less disappointment).

:roll: live a little! :wink:

skrap1r0n
2004-Mar-01, 10:25 PM
I am more interested in locating water. If water can be located then that increases the chances that a manned trip can stay longer and take more gear while cultivating plants brought along. Once we get folks there, then I'd be more interested in seeking out life.

If life IS found with the water that would be an added bonus, but then there would be the concern that said life could adversly affect humans when we DO visit.

jaeger
2004-Mar-02, 12:27 AM
If life IS found with the water that would be an added bonus, but then there would be the concern that said life could adversly affect humans when we DO visit.

Raises an interesting question: If existing life is found on Mars (or any place else in the Solar System), should we go there? Are we equipped to sufficiently protect what life there is, even at the microorganisn level, should we choose to visit? I'm more worried about that than any life found on Mars adversely affecting humans.

Squink
2004-Mar-02, 01:00 AM
I'm more worried about that than any life found on Mars adversely affecting humans. SPACE PLAGUE ! (http://members.cox.net/sjrohde4/avong1154_spaceplague.htm)

Espritch
2004-Mar-02, 04:44 AM
In addition to water, life on Earth needs a source of energy. If liquid water only exists under ground, potential organisms would not have access to sun light as an engery source. On Earth, some organisms have evolved to use geothermal energy instead. But Mars is much less geologically active than Earth so that might not be an option either. I supose it might be possible to have an organism that could use the heat produced by radioactive materials but I don't think any Earth life has evolved to do so (although some bacteria have been found living underground in areas with radiation levels that would be harmful to most Earth life - I don't think they actually use decay radiation energy directly though).

foxd
2004-Mar-02, 03:39 PM
In addition to water, life on Earth needs a source of energy. If liquid water only exists under ground, potential organisms would not have access to sun light as an engery source. On Earth, some organisms have evolved to use geothermal energy instead. But Mars is much less geologically active than Earth so that might not be an option either. I supose it might be possible to have an organism that could use the heat produced by radioactive materials but I don't think any Earth life has evolved to do so (although some bacteria have been found living underground in areas with radiation levels that would be harmful to most Earth life - I don't think they actually use decay radiation energy directly though).

I was wondering yesterday if hydrogen peroxide could be used as an energy source for life.

Drakheim
2004-Mar-02, 03:47 PM
In addition to water, life on Earth needs a source of energy. If liquid water only exists under ground, potential organisms would not have access to sun light as an engery source. On Earth, some organisms have evolved to use geothermal energy instead. But Mars is much less geologically active than Earth so that might not be an option either. I supose it might be possible to have an organism that could use the heat produced by radioactive materials but I don't think any Earth life has evolved to do so (although some bacteria have been found living underground in areas with radiation levels that would be harmful to most Earth life - I don't think they actually use decay radiation energy directly though).

The hardest part to speculate about life is that we have to remember that Mars is not Earth. Life could very possibly exist on a planet that is very cold and has no geothermic activity. It is probable, though unlikely, that some form of life has developed that feeds off of the iron, or some other metal that is available on that planet.

Some form of plant life may have evolved with the ability to grow without the need for sunlight so that it may survive underground. Taking out the Earth equation dose leave a lot of room for life possibilities.
8)

R.A.F.
2004-Mar-02, 04:04 PM
Taking out the Earth equation dose leave a lot of room for life possibilities.
8)

I'm not disagreeing with you, but if you remove the "Earth model for life", you've removed the only "model" that we know of that actually works. All others are speculation.

Drakheim
2004-Mar-02, 04:08 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you, but if you remove the "Earth model for life", you've removed the only "model" that we know of that actually works. All others are speculation.

True true, but given the understading we have in reguards to the earth model for life, Mars has very little chance for developing beyond the infancy stage of life. :cry:

hickboy
2004-Mar-02, 04:09 PM
I would think that there would have to be a climate that lends itself to development of life, like the warmer, prejistoric earth. But, like it was stated above, that is only for life as we know it. My feeble little mind has a difficult time even beginning to understand another model for life, I'm still trying to figure out that which is known here on Earth...

Espritch
2004-Mar-03, 01:24 AM
Taking out the Earth equation dose leave a lot of room for life possibilities.

I certainly would agree that the different ways life exists on Earth don't exhaust the possible ways life could exist. But life anywhere will be subject to some basic rules. One of these rules is that it will require some source of energy it can exploit. You can speak of organisms eating iron but you have to show how they derive energy from eating iron. You can speak of Martian plants evolving to grow without the need for sunlight, but you still have to provide an alternate energy source. Life is a process, and all processes require energy. That is true on Mar, or Earth, or any place in the known universe.

Personally, I'm rooting for life to be found on Mars. But I'm not holding my breath.