Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Life on Mars, ID, and a prediction

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As many of you probably saw in the news NASA announced significant new evidence that microbial life exists on Mars. The evidence is methane plumes. There are some rare abiotic mechanisms which can produce methane but the probability that those account for it are slim. For those who follow such things you might also recall that a meteor from Mars found in Antarctica bore what looked like fossilized bacteria. Along with the recent discovery by Mars surface explorers of water and minerals which only form in the presence of water it’s looking like a pretty strong case when all this is taken together.

So what does this mean for ID? Well, it means that those ID supporters who put stock in the notion of panspermia and directed panspermia are looking good. ID supporters like myself, UD author Doctor (MD) David Cook, and NASA physicist Rob Sheldon (see papers 45 and 46), are some of those. And of course I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the discoverers of the DNA double helix Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel who authored articles and a book about directed panspermia.

I will now make a prediction from an ID perspective. Any living organisms found on Mars will be based on DNA and ribosomes essentially identical to what all life on earth utilizes. This is because life, even the simplest forms, is too complex to have originated in our solar system very early in its history. Wherever it came from, and however it got here, it was the same basic structural form that landed in all places – Earth, Mars, and wherever else in our solar system it may have found suitable conditions.

Comments
There is much more evidence for panspermia than methane plumes on Mars. It really began when Fred Hoyle and his partner Chandra Wickramasinghe noticed a nearly exact match between the spectrum of interstellar dust and dried bacteria. They did not go looking for this, but were trying to discover what accounted for a certain region in the spectrum. They were surprised, but went where the evidence took them and ended up putting panspermia on a scientific basis. They have been wrong about some things as the theory has developed, but that's no different than any other scientific process. I too scoffed at first. But I bought and read a couple of Hoyle's books and I am no longer scoffing. I am convinced there's something to it and it ought to be taken seriously and investigated further. I also recommend any of Hoyle's books on the subject. He was also an excellent science fiction writer. "October the First is Too Late" is one of the few books I've read more than twice.dacook
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
In my opinion: Anyone getting excited about methane clouds on Mars is grasping at straws. Many of the articles on this story simultaneously express excitement while subtly acknowledging a variety of alternate - and perhaps, more likely - geologic explanations. That aside: I have never felt that predictions like the one in DavScot's post are particularly strong, since the likelihood of his prediction coming to fruition is really a 50/50 shot - Marsian life either will or will not be DNA-based. That's no more impressive than predicting the outcome of a football game. The prediction is further weakened by DavScot's use of the word "essentially," which makes his prediction all the more ambiguous and far too pliable to be confirmed or disconfirmed when we are one day looking at it in retrospect. That said, I think DavScot's prediction could be the hopeful beginnings of a stronger, more rigorous ID prediction. But it needs a lot of work, first.QuadFather
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
There are some rare abiotic mechanisms which can produce methane but the probability that those account for it are slim.
The conditional probability P(B | M), where B stands for "biotic origin" and M stands for "methane plume on earth," cannot be applied on Mars without remarkable assumptions. Someone needs to state those assumptions outright.Sal Gal
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
In regard to Scot's original post: "I will now make a prediction from an ID perspective. Any living organisms found on Mars will be based on DNA and ribosomes essentially identical to what all life on earth utilizes." His prediction is close to becoming reality: "The new research, to be published this week in the New Journal of Physics, found nonorganic dust, when held in the form of plasma in zero gravity, formed the helical structures found in DNA. The particles are held together by electromagnetic forces that the scientists say could contain a code comparable to the genetic information held in organic matter … The findings have provoked speculation that the helix could be a common structure that underpins all life, organic and nonorganic.” —Robert Booth “Dust ‘comes alive’ in space”, The Sunday Times, August 2007. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2241753.ecewhoisyourcreator
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
"This is because life, even the simplest forms, is too complex to have originated in our solar system very early in its history." I don't understand this at all, if the designer is powerful enough to alter evolution then why can't He have 'put' simple bacteria in our solar system?GSV
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Didn't God say he made Adam from red clay? ;)IRQ Conflict
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
It's worth keeping in mind that the folk at NASA may be primed psychologically to see life because it is very important to the public support for their program. We might want to look at this in the context of the recession too. I wrote about that here: Extraterrestrial life: NASA says could be life on Mars- or could be rocks. In the same spirit, people have believed that there were canals on Mars or that Pluto was a big planet.O'Leary
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
This might explain it better - being a more simple explanation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3535498.stmAndrew Sibley
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Dave, If life is on Mars then its structure should be able to verify or disqualify a front loading hypothesis since the front loading hypothesis means that the original seeding had the necessary genome for what is hypothesized to cause the latter life forms. If it is only a simple bacteria like organism then that should be a negative for front loading. One thing to look for would be the hox genes or genes associated with structures of multi celled organisms. There are probably a lot of other hypotheses that could be generated.jerry
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
I just read the following comment elsewhere: --- If methane is such a sure indicator of life the surface of Jupiter must be covered with cows Ric Whittington, Brighton, uk --- :DMaxAug
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Re Mars meteorite found in Antartica, see Boston Globe article "Ten Years Later Few Experts Believe Mars Meteorite Contains Traces of Life": http://scripts.mit.edu/~gamba/press/Ten%20years%20later,%20few%20experts%20believe%20Mars%20meteorite%20contains%20Boston%20Globe%208%206%2006.pdf Hope springs eternal, but still no proof.Granville Sewell
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Dave, you forgot. ID doesn't predict anything. However, I find your non-prediction intriguing. I gather bacteria were present on Earth very early, and thus perhaps also on Mars. If they have the same genetic structure, wouldn't the most likely explanation be that the two planets swapped bacteria via rocks?O'Leary
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
I believe you are correct Joseph. If I’m not mistaken, Rana & Ross book on OOL discusses that. Though, obviously, it would be a very difficult process. But notice the authors don’t dismiss the possibility all this methane is due to geological activity. It is good to remember that a headline called "Mars is geologically active" wouldn’t be too much attractive in these ID wars days. Speaking of it, did you guys see Carl Zimmer article on OOL in the January edition of Science? Jesus, I wonder if peer review is based on friendship…MaxAug
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Dave, I think I'll wait until there's a little stronger evidence for life on Mars than H_2O or CH_4 before worrying about what it means for ID! Here's a BBC article that says the methane could be caused by either geological activity or life: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7829315.stm Seems like abiotic creation of CH_4 is a lot more likely than abiotic creation of methane-creating bacteria! As for the "meteor from Mars" didn't they finally decide that didn't come from Mars after all?Granville Sewell
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Could artifacts of living organisms on Mars have come from Earth? If the History Channel is right then that is a possibility. Ya see volcano eruptions, meteor and asteroid impacts could have spewed living organisms into space which in turn could have landed on Mars. Just a thought...Joseph
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply