Curiosity discovers organic matter on Mars!

[FishInferno]

So recently, Curiosity made a couple of historic discoveries:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/12/curiosity-organics-mars-opportunitys-10-year-anniversary/

On 16 December 2014, NASA announced that Curiosity had definitively detected organic matter on Mars.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/nasa-rover-finds-active-ancient-organic-chemistry-on-mars/index.html

Now, this doesn't mean that we have found life on Mars, but this makes it a whole lot more likely.

[Bill Phil]

Good...?

Aliens! It has to be aliens!

Nah. But it could be a sign of very ancient life.

[FishInferno]

Well, I would liek to thin that there are still some microbes that reside on Mars, but even if we prove that life DID exist on Mars, that would be huge.

[Aethon]

This is discussed in depth below in the thread Gale crater once held a massive lake.

[Guest]

About as interesting as finding organic matter in your fridge. We've found it on a random comet and now mars, must be pretty common.

[Frida Space]

Although it doesn't mean anything, it does suggest that the building blocks of life might be rather common... let's hope Earth is not a magical, perfect, 1 in a billion chance world!

[Bill Phil]

Although it doesn't mean anything, it does suggest that the building blocks of life might be rather common... let's hope Earth is not a magical, perfect, 1 in a billion chance world!

What do you expect?

Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and all that are very common throughout the universe.

[GoSlash27]

Well of *course* there's organic compounds on Mars. There's organic compounds all over the place.

That doesn't mean there is or ever was *life* on Mars.

Not fussing at you, FishInferno, but rather at the media. They've really overblown this story IMO.

Best,

-Slashy

[Dr-Drunk]

I'd still like to believe that given how our solar system has 1 planet with life on it, out of the 8 present... And with the countless billion stars out there. We can't possibly be the only ones right? But I geuss it'll be a loooooong time before humanity can ever prove or disprove that.

But yea ... going as far as believing there is or was life on Mars? Nah.. The fact that the building blocks are there does increase the odds though. Or atleast the odds of life elsewhere.

[Frida Space]

What do you expect?

Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and all that are very common throughout the universe.

But they are not enough for life. The big news will be when we will discover amino acids, like in the Murchison meteorite.

[Cirocco]

weeeeeeellll... The fact that organic molecules were found is indeed not super-surprising. But what captures my imagination is the fact that they also found methane spikes in the atmosphere. Methane only has a lifetime of roughly 300 years in martian atmosphere. That means that methane is being produced somehow. And currently, there's basically two ways that can happen: life or chemical reaction in the soil.

organic molecules and methane means life is certainly possible (but not in any way shape or form proven, shouldn't get our hopes up just yet). And even if it isn't life: the chemical reaction that makes methane requires liquid water, which in turn would mean that mars has subsurface liquid water, probably not too deep either. And that makes colonization efforts a LOT easier.

[KerikBalm]

organic molecules and methane means life is certainly possible (but not in any way shape or form proven, shouldn't get our hopes up just yet)

It doesn't meant its possible or impossible. It is simply not inconsistent with life/ those results are compatible with life.

But they are not enough for life. The big news will be when we will discover amino acids, like in the Murchison meteorite.

But we've already found those in comets.... and there are plenty of more complex organics plainly visible by spectroscopy in nebulae.

Life is all about feedback loops. The start of life was a positive feedback loop. Generally speaking, positive feedback loops have two states in biology, off or on. Just because the building blocks were there, and conditions were there, does not mean they were sufficiently conducive to life to get the feedback loop started, and switch to the "on" or "life" state.

[Frida Space]

But we've already found those in comets.... and there are plenty of more complex organics plainly visible by spectroscopy in nebulae.

True, but life can't start on a comet or in a nebula. Finding amminoacids next to a once-habitable environment would be a completely different thing.

[Bill Phil]

True, but life can't start on a comet or in a nebula. Finding amminoacids next to a once-habitable environment would be a completely different thing.

The point is the building blocks are common. The situations may not be, but the building blocks are.

[Frida Space]

The point is the building blocks are common. The situations may not be, but the building blocks are.

That's what I meant to say. It's the combination "building blocks + habitable conditions" that we are looking for.

[notsosmart]

That's what I meant to say. It's the combination "building blocks + habitable conditions" that we are looking for.

Yea, I agree. Amino acids are cool and everything, but finding them on a comet or whatever isn't really great stuff. If we had found them for example in the river bed Curiosity discovered on Mars a while back, well that would have definitely been something.

[Cirocco]

It doesn't meant its possible or impossible. It is simply not inconsistent with life/ those results are compatible with life.

true, but the more indirect elements that *could* indicate life we find, the more plausible the possibility of life becomes.

Occam's razor: if the options are that it's either a combination of several individual and different causes each leading to these specific results, or one single one that produces them all, then the more matching results you find, the more the probability that it's the one cause becomes bigger.

It's still perfectly possible that the common cause is in reality not there, but it cannot be discounted.

But again, the amount of indirect evidence is still very small and could perfectly be explained through other causes. But with the recent discoveries, the possiblity of martian life has (in my mind) been bumped from "extremely unlikely" to "erm... maybe? possibly? probably not but... you never know?"And that gets me excited

[FishInferno]

True, but life can't start on a comet or in a nebula.

Prove it. We have only one sample to base our assumption on the requirements of life, Earth. Who says life can't exist on a comet because there isn't an atmosphere? We thought life required sunlight until we found it at the bottom of the ocean.

[Frida Space]

Prove it. We have only one sample to base our assumption on the requirements of life, Earth. Who says life can't exist on a comet because there isn't an atmosphere? We thought life required sunlight until we found it at the bottom of the ocean.

Who mentioned an atmosphere?

I don't want to write an essay, so I'll make one simple example. Life as we know it needs energy. On the early Earth, it was mainly sunlight, but there were also vulcanoes, lightnings, UV light, internal heat, cosmic rays ecc. At "the bottom of the ocean", as you state, there are hydrothermal vents. What source of energy does a comet offer? On the early Earth, the sun produced 1 090 000.0 Jm-2yr-1 of energy. Comets don't get near as much sunlight. The only ones that do, sungrazing comets, get too much of it. Either way, whatever their orbit, the amount of sunlight a comet get varies a lot through its orbit and that's not very suitable for life at all.

Plus, there are so many other things wrong with life existing or even just surviving on a comet.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Frida Space

[Kryten]

Prove it. We have only one sample to base our assumption on the requirements of life, Earth. Who says life can't exist on a comet because there isn't an atmosphere? We thought life required sunlight until we found it at the bottom of the ocean.

You're mixing definitions. We didn't think a functioning ecosystem could work long-term without light, we don't believe any organism could survive in a nebula or a on a comet.

[FishInferno]

we don't believe any organism could survive in a nebula or a on a comet.

Why not? do we have evidence to prove life can't exist on a comet.

[Kryten]

Well, there'd be no solvents, almost no energy input, and the most likely precursors to life (RNA nucleotides) are, as far as we can tell, completely absent.

[FishInferno]

But how do we know that all life has the same struture/needs as life on Earth?

[Kryten]

How exactly do you propose life is supposed to occur without any solvents and almost no energy input? It's fundamentally a set of chemical reactions, you won't find it where reactions can't occur.

[Bill Phil]

Ammonia. It could allow for colder climates. But it's not as good as water...