Re: [meteorite-list] New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite
On Sat, 8 May 2010 22:49:27 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: I watched this program on TV about the presence of life in extreme environments - living things have been found thriving in places and in substances never before considered possible, such as in crude oil in Panama with little to no water or oxygen and in the glaciers on the summit of Mt.Kenya where radiation from the suns rays can be intense.. Yes, the bottleneck for life may very well be in having the conditions for abiogenesis in the first place. Once life has started, it is damn hard to get rid of-- bacterial life, at least. Given gradual (as in, not instantaneous, globally catastropic) changes for the worse, microbes tend to be able to adapt to a very wide range of conditions. That's why I think that, if there ever was life on Mars at all, there probably continues to be life on Mars today (even if only a couple of klicks under the surface.) __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite
OK,, it states something to the effect that the softer upper layers of Mars are unlikely to survive entry through Earth's atmosphere? Then what about Howardites and some of the chondrites which can be quite friable? I watched this program on TV about the presence of life in extreme environments - living things have been found thriving in places and in substances never before considered possible, such as in crude oil in Panama with little to no water or oxygen and in the glaciers on the summit of Mt.Kenya where radiation from the suns rays can be intense.. --- Melanie IMCA: 2975 eBay: metmel2775 Known on SkyRock Cafe as SpaceCollector09 Unclassified meteorites are like a box of chocolates... you never know what you're gonna get! - Original Message From: Robert Verish bolidecha...@yahoo.com To: Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thu, May 6, 2010 9:58:58 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Re: New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite Hello List, Whatever your opinion is on this subject, I'm sure we can all agree on this one thing - and that one thing was well-stated by McKay himself and was quoted in the last paragraph of that recent article. Here it is: - Attached Text --- In a plenary session, in which Squyres solicited the group's views on how the field should move forward, McKay stood up to say that examining possible Martian microfossils should be a much higher priority. He said that the biomorphs now being found could answer some of the basic questions about life on Mars and that it could be done at a much lower cost than the multibillion-dollar alternative plan -- sending a rover to Mars to pick up some rock samples and bringing them back to Earth. These meteorites are samples from Mars, he said, and need to be treated as the valuable resource they are. --- These are my sentiments, as well. Bob V. --- Attached Message [meteorite-list] NASA Team Cites New Evidence That Meteorites From Mars Contain Ancient Fossils Ron Baalke baalke at zagami.jpl.nasa.gov Wed May 5 18:53:16 EDT 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043002000.html NASA team cites new evidence that meteorites from Mars contain ancient fossils By Marc Kaufman Washington Post May 4, 2010 LEAGUE CITY, TEX. -- NASA's Mars Meteorite Research Team reopened a 14-year-old controversy on extraterrestrial life last week, reaffirming and offering support for its widely challenged assertion that a 4-billion-year-old meteorite that landed thousands of years ago on Antarctica shows evidence of microscopic life on Mars. In addition to presenting research that they said disproved some of their critics, the scientists reported that additional Martian meteorites appear to house distinct and identifiable microbial fossils that point even more strongly to the existence of life. We feel more confident than ever that Mars probably once was, and maybe still is, home to life, team leader David McKay said at a NASA-sponsored conference on astrobiology. The researchers' presentations were not met with any of the excited frenzy that greeted the original 1996 announcement about the meteorite -- which led to a televised statement by President Bill Clinton in which he announced a space summit, the formation of a commission to examine its implications and the birth of a NASA-funded astrobiology program. Fourteen years of relentless criticism have turned many scientists against the McKay results, and the Mars meteorite discovery has remained an unresolved and somewhat awkward issue. This has continued even though the team's central finding -- that Mars once had living creatures -- has gained broad acceptance among the biologists, chemists, geologists, astronomers and other scientists who make up the astrobiology community. Speaking at a four-day conference near NASA's Johnson Space Center, McKay's team didn't claim it had definitive proof that the meteorites they are studying -- which can be identified as Martian because the gases inside them match the Martian atmosphere -- contain the remains of living organisms. Rather, the researchers described their re-energized confidence as emerging from a process of nitty-gritty science, based on inference, simulated testing and a kind of interplanetary forensics. McKay cited years of work by team members Kathie Thomas-Keprta and Simon Clemett that he said rebuts a central critique of the meteorite's significance. He also pointed to the presence of what appear to be fossilized microbes in other Martian meteorites, as well as the steady flow of discoveries by others pointing to a Mars that at one time could have supported life -- wet, warmer and enveloped in a potentially protective atmosphere and a magnetic field. Rebutting the critics The Thomas-Keprta work, published late last
Re: [meteorite-list] New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite
Hope this posts.. Anyways,, it states something to the effect that the softer upper layers of Mars are unlikely to survive entry through Earth's atmosphere? Then what about Howardites and some of the chondrites which can be quite friable? I watched this program on TV about the presence of life in extreme environments - living things have been found thriving in places and in substances never before considered possible, such as in crude oil in Panama with little to no water or oxygen and in the glaciers on the summit of Mt.Kenya where radiation from the suns rays can be intense.. --- Melanie IMCA: 2975 eBay: metmel2775 Known on SkyRock Cafe as SpaceCollector09 Unclassified meteorites are like a box of chocolates... you never know what you're gonna get! - Original Message From: Robert Verish bolidecha...@yahoo.com To: Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Sent: Thu, May 6, 2010 9:58:58 AM Subject: [meteorite-list] Re: New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite Hello List, Whatever your opinion is on this subject, I'm sure we can all agree on this one thing - and that one thing was well-stated by McKay himself and was quoted in the last paragraph of that recent article. Here it is: - Attached Text --- In a plenary session, in which Squyres solicited the group's views on how the field should move forward, McKay stood up to say that examining possible Martian microfossils should be a much higher priority. He said that the biomorphs now being found could answer some of the basic questions about life on Mars and that it could be done at a much lower cost than the multibillion-dollar alternative plan -- sending a rover to Mars to pick up some rock samples and bringing them back to Earth. These meteorites are samples from Mars, he said, and need to be treated as the valuable resource they are. --- These are my sentiments, as well. Bob V. --- Attached Message [meteorite-list] NASA Team Cites New Evidence That Meteorites From Mars Contain Ancient Fossils Ron Baalke baalke at zagami.jpl.nasa.gov Wed May 5 18:53:16 EDT 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043002000.html NASA team cites new evidence that meteorites from Mars contain ancient fossils By Marc Kaufman Washington Post May 4, 2010 LEAGUE CITY, TEX. -- NASA's Mars Meteorite Research Team reopened a 14-year-old controversy on extraterrestrial life last week, reaffirming and offering support for its widely challenged assertion that a 4-billion-year-old meteorite that landed thousands of years ago on Antarctica shows evidence of microscopic life on Mars. In addition to presenting research that they said disproved some of their critics, the scientists reported that additional Martian meteorites appear to house distinct and identifiable microbial fossils that point even more strongly to the existence of life. We feel more confident than ever that Mars probably once was, and maybe still is, home to life, team leader David McKay said at a NASA-sponsored conference on astrobiology. The researchers' presentations were not met with any of the excited frenzy that greeted the original 1996 announcement about the meteorite -- which led to a televised statement by President Bill Clinton in which he announced a space summit, the formation of a commission to examine its implications and the birth of a NASA-funded astrobiology program. Fourteen years of relentless criticism have turned many scientists against the McKay results, and the Mars meteorite discovery has remained an unresolved and somewhat awkward issue. This has continued even though the team's central finding -- that Mars once had living creatures -- has gained broad acceptance among the biologists, chemists, geologists, astronomers and other scientists who make up the astrobiology community. Speaking at a four-day conference near NASA's Johnson Space Center, McKay's team didn't claim it had definitive proof that the meteorites they are studying -- which can be identified as Martian because the gases inside them match the Martian atmosphere -- contain the remains of living organisms. Rather, the researchers described their re-energized confidence as emerging from a process of nitty-gritty science, based on inference, simulated testing and a kind of interplanetary forensics. McKay cited years of work by team members Kathie Thomas-Keprta and Simon Clemett that he said rebuts a central critique of the meteorite's significance. He also pointed to the presence of what appear to be fossilized microbes in other Martian meteorites, as well as the steady flow of discoveries by others pointing to a Mars that at one time could have supported life -- wet, warmer and enveloped in a potentially protective atmosphere and a magnetic field. Rebutting the critics The Thomas-Keprta
Re: [meteorite-list] New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite
Hello Robert and List, That is my thoughts exactly Robert, I think we often overlook just what we have in our collections in the way of a piece of the planet Mars, wow how blessed we are. Take Care, Jason --- On Thu, 5/6/10, Robert Verish bolidecha...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Robert Verish bolidecha...@yahoo.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Re: New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite To: Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com Date: Thursday, May 6, 2010, 12:58 PM Hello List, Whatever your opinion is on this subject, I'm sure we can all agree on this one thing - and that one thing was well-stated by McKay himself and was quoted in the last paragraph of that recent article. Here it is: - Attached Text --- In a plenary session, in which Squyres solicited the group's views on how the field should move forward, McKay stood up to say that examining possible Martian microfossils should be a much higher priority. He said that the biomorphs now being found could answer some of the basic questions about life on Mars and that it could be done at a much lower cost than the multibillion-dollar alternative plan -- sending a rover to Mars to pick up some rock samples and bringing them back to Earth. These meteorites are samples from Mars, he said, and need to be treated as the valuable resource they are. --- These are my sentiments, as well. Bob V. --- Attached Message [meteorite-list] NASA Team Cites New Evidence That Meteorites From Mars Contain Ancient Fossils Ron Baalke baalke at zagami.jpl.nasa.gov Wed May 5 18:53:16 EDT 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043002000.html NASA team cites new evidence that meteorites from Mars contain ancient fossils By Marc Kaufman Washington Post May 4, 2010 LEAGUE CITY, TEX. -- NASA's Mars Meteorite Research Team reopened a 14-year-old controversy on extraterrestrial life last week, reaffirming and offering support for its widely challenged assertion that a 4-billion-year-old meteorite that landed thousands of years ago on Antarctica shows evidence of microscopic life on Mars. In addition to presenting research that they said disproved some of their critics, the scientists reported that additional Martian meteorites appear to house distinct and identifiable microbial fossils that point even more strongly to the existence of life. We feel more confident than ever that Mars probably once was, and maybe still is, home to life, team leader David McKay said at a NASA-sponsored conference on astrobiology. The researchers' presentations were not met with any of the excited frenzy that greeted the original 1996 announcement about the meteorite -- which led to a televised statement by President Bill Clinton in which he announced a space summit, the formation of a commission to examine its implications and the birth of a NASA-funded astrobiology program. Fourteen years of relentless criticism have turned many scientists against the McKay results, and the Mars meteorite discovery has remained an unresolved and somewhat awkward issue. This has continued even though the team's central finding -- that Mars once had living creatures -- has gained broad acceptance among the biologists, chemists, geologists, astronomers and other scientists who make up the astrobiology community. Speaking at a four-day conference near NASA's Johnson Space Center, McKay's team didn't claim it had definitive proof that the meteorites they are studying -- which can be identified as Martian because the gases inside them match the Martian atmosphere -- contain the remains of living organisms. Rather, the researchers described their re-energized confidence as emerging from a process of nitty-gritty science, based on inference, simulated testing and a kind of interplanetary forensics. McKay cited years of work by team members Kathie Thomas-Keprta and Simon Clemett that he said rebuts a central critique of the meteorite's significance. He also pointed to the presence of what appear to be fossilized microbes in other Martian meteorites, as well as the steady flow of discoveries by others pointing to a Mars that at one time could have supported life -- wet, warmer and enveloped in a potentially protective atmosphere and a magnetic field. Rebutting the critics The Thomas-Keprta work, published late last year in the journal Geochemica, centers on the origin of iron-based crystals called magnetites in the original Mars meteorite, called ALH84001. Magnetites on Earth are sometimes created by bacteria that respond to the planet's magnetic field; the McKay team argued that some of the Martian magnetites were of this biologically created type. Critics had said
[meteorite-list] New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite
. [meteorite-list] Fwd: Re: New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteoritecdtucson at cox.net cdtucson at cox.net Thu May 6 15:33:09 EDT 2010 Previous message: [meteorite-list] Large Fireball observed on 6MAY2010 in Argentina Next message: [meteorite-list] Large Fireball observed on 6MAY2010 in Argentina Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Everett, All due respect but this was exactly my point. ALH84001 does NOT match Martian Oxygen isotopes . The ones within ALH84001 only match a theoretical but different Martian atmosphere. Only the much younger SNC's match what we know to be Mars Ratios. Houston we had a problem . No problem just say it matches Mar's older atmosphere. Ya, that'll work. NOT! Sorry but it still looks like a duck to me. How could we possibly know for a fact that Mars once had a different atmosphere that ALH84001 matches? . Sounds like to tail wagging the dog to me. see link. Gas trapped in the meteorite's minerals does not match the ratio of gases of Mar's modern thin atmosphere. Younger meteorites do match. Dr. Ben Weiss. http://www.mail-archive.com/meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com/msg12675.html So , again. ALH84001 may or may not be from Mars without a real stretch. ? Carl -- Carl or Debbie Esparza Meteoritemax ekgmars at aol.com wrote: I would like to offer additional information about why we know ALH84001 is from Mars. In additional to the oxygen isotopes (which the scientific community now recognizes as the standard to recognized various extraterrestrial materials), the trapped noble gases match those previously identified to be from Mars (Bogard and Garrison, LPSC) in other SNC meteorites and the atmospheric gases measured by Viking's mass spectrometers in 1976 and 1977. Selected trace element abundances and ratios also match those recognized to be from Martian materials. The original diogenite classification of ALH84001 was based on a very limited chemical analysis and a single thin section which was not representative of the sample. Everett Gibson -Original Message- From: cdtucson at cox.net To: JoshuaTreeMuseum joshuatreemuseum at embarqmail.com; meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Sent: Wed, 5 May 2010 17:32 Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite Phil, I have no arguments against your points here but, I do have a few questions. With all due respect and hope that I am not too far off base here. Based on thousands of photos of Mars it seems to be a lot like Earth less the water and growies. Although there are a lot of places here that do look exactly like Mars. Isn't it possible for igneous rocks to become metamorphosed into rocks that might be from past oceans on Mars? One of our probes definitely confirmed the presents of Glauconite and Albite on Mars. these are also found in Earths oceans. So, I tend to believe a lot of what our scientists say. Even without extraordinary proof. To me there are theories being postured that are far more in need of proof than the fact that Mar's may have life. Such as. . The Moon was created by a giant collision with earth? What? The Moon is nothing like Earth and what about all of the other planet's Moons? Did Saturn and Jupiter get hit as well? Wait! How would that work? Aren't they Gaseous? What would it have hit? But the most Crazy theory is that ALH84001 is even from Mars at all. It does not match any of the other SNC's in either Mineralogy or Isotopes. Yes, it has some like minerals but that should not come as a surprise. And Yes, they say if the O- isotopes match, that is diagnostic of origin. Problem is that ALH84001's O-isotopes does not match the others. So, how could it have the same origin? Please explain that one? It was first classified as a diogenite because it is very much like a diogenite (if it looks like a duck) . But for the some reason it suddenly became a new Martian meteorite. It may well be from Mars but, if the isotopes don't match the others then how could it be? Usually Isotopes rule. Don't they? I am asking because I would like to know not to disrespect anybody here. Seems to me it may be from a different planet? Carl -- Carl or Debbie Esparza Meteoritemax JoshuaTreeMuseum joshuatreemuseum at embarqmail.com wrote: Melanie: I think they're just recycling their old claims to try and get more taxpayer funding for their project. I'm still waiting to hear their new evidence. It's the same as their old evidence, which is weak. McKay and his crew remind me of Michael Mann and his CRU with their AGW agenda
[meteorite-list] New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043002000.html --- Melanie IMCA: 2975 eBay: metmel2775 Known on SkyRock Cafe as SpaceCollector09 Unclassified meteorites are like a box of chocolates... you never know what you're gonna get! __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite
Sounds like these could be real this time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043002000.html --- Melanie IMCA: 2975 eBay: metmel2775 Known on SkyRock Cafe as SpaceCollector09 Unclassified meteorites are like a box of chocolates... you never know what you're gonna get! __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
[meteorite-list] New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite
Melanie: I think they're just recycling their old claims to try and get more taxpayer funding for their project. I'm still waiting to hear their new evidence. It's the same as their old evidence, which is weak. McKay and his crew remind me of Michael Mann and his CRU with their AGW agenda. (Incidently, NASA is involved in Climategate with their questionable Goddard Institute for Space Studies data.) These people are seriously looking for microbial fossils in igneous rock? Has a fossil of any kind ever been found in an igneous rock? Are life forms ever preserved in magma, granite or obsidian? This is laughable at the least. So they found some magnetite crystals. They say 75% were naturally formed by a shock mechanism, while 25% were so perfect, they had to be biogenic. What are the chances of this actually happening? Wouldn't it all be natural or all biogenic? And get this: the magnetite is exactly the same as that produced by magnetotactic bacteria on Earth! So what are the chances of this happening? 2 identical life forms on two different planets. These things live in the ocean, could they survive an interplanetary journey? Why are these magnetite chain fossils not found in sedimentary Earth rocks, but yet they appear in igneous Mars rocks? Since these are aquatic creatures, it seems highly unlikely they would turn up in igneous rock. Their whole argument rests of the morphology of a few magnetite nano crystals, which they claim they can now see better with higher resolution microscopes. I think this is very weak evidence, and I remain unconvinced. I think desktop cold fusion is more likely. Phil Whitmer __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite
I've been swayed by the mounting evidence for ancient microbes for a while now, and am in the McCay camp. Thanks Melanie, for posting this ever increasingly important story! Regards, Henry Mendoza Aurora, CO Sent from my iPod __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite
Phil, No one has ever the Martian microbes were in an ocean. Only that there was water in the environment the organisms grew in. And there has been microrganisms found in and near basaltic rock. Seems that life finds niches in many environments, even extremely hostile ones. I would suggest to many on this list to read the book: The Rock from Mars by Kathy Sawyer Just yesterday I watched a documentary episode of THE PLANETS that had a researcher talking about microrganisms being found in volcanic rock in remote and extreme places on earths surface. And let's not forget the microorganisms that have been found near fumerols at the bottom of the oceans. I'm new to this listing and do not like some of the name calling and such I've been reading while catching up. So please know that my response is not to incite animosity but rather fruitful discussion. Best regards to all! Henry Mendoza Aurora, CO Sent from my iPod __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Re: [meteorite-list] New evidence for microbial fossils in Martian meteorite
Phil, I have no arguments against your points here but, I do have a few questions. With all due respect and hope that I am not too far off base here. Based on thousands of photos of Mars it seems to be a lot like Earth less the water and growies. Although there are a lot of places here that do look exactly like Mars. Isn't it possible for igneous rocks to become metamorphosed into rocks that might be from past oceans on Mars? One of our probes definitely confirmed the presents of Glauconite and Albite on Mars. these are also found in Earths oceans. So, I tend to believe a lot of what our scientists say. Even without extraordinary proof. To me there are theories being postured that are far more in need of proof than the fact that Mar's may have life. Such as. . The Moon was created by a giant collision with earth? What? The Moon is nothing like Earth and what about all of the other planet's Moons? Did Saturn and Jupiter get hit as well? Wait! How would that work? Aren't they Gaseous? What would it have hit? But the most Crazy theory is that ALH84001 is even from Mars at all. It does not match any of the other SNC's in either Mineralogy or Isotopes. Yes, it has some like minerals but that should not come as a surprise. And Yes, they say if the O- isotopes match, that is diagnostic of origin. Problem is that ALH84001's O-isotopes does not match the others. So, how could it have the same origin? Please explain that one? It was first classified as a diogenite because it is very much like a diogenite (if it looks like a duck) . But for the some reason it suddenly became a new Martian meteorite. It may well be from Mars but, if the isotopes don't match the others then how could it be? Usually Isotopes rule. Don't they? I am asking because I would like to know not to disrespect anybody here. Seems to me it may be from a different planet? Carl -- Carl or Debbie Esparza Meteoritemax JoshuaTreeMuseum joshuatreemus...@embarqmail.com wrote: Melanie: I think they're just recycling their old claims to try and get more taxpayer funding for their project. I'm still waiting to hear their new evidence. It's the same as their old evidence, which is weak. McKay and his crew remind me of Michael Mann and his CRU with their AGW agenda. (Incidently, NASA is involved in Climategate with their questionable Goddard Institute for Space Studies data.) These people are seriously looking for microbial fossils in igneous rock? Has a fossil of any kind ever been found in an igneous rock? Are life forms ever preserved in magma, granite or obsidian? This is laughable at the least. So they found some magnetite crystals. They say 75% were naturally formed by a shock mechanism, while 25% were so perfect, they had to be biogenic. What are the chances of this actually happening? Wouldn't it all be natural or all biogenic? And get this: the magnetite is exactly the same as that produced by magnetotactic bacteria on Earth! So what are the chances of this happening? 2 identical life forms on two different planets. These things live in the ocean, could they survive an interplanetary journey? Why are these magnetite chain fossils not found in sedimentary Earth rocks, but yet they appear in igneous Mars rocks? Since these are aquatic creatures, it seems highly unlikely they would turn up in igneous rock. Their whole argument rests of the morphology of a few magnetite nano crystals, which they claim they can now see better with higher resolution microscopes. I think this is very weak evidence, and I remain unconvinced. I think desktop cold fusion is more likely. Phil Whitmer __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list __ Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
