Further to the recent evidence for water on Mars, and the BBC News commentary that
“If we find life on Mars and it can be shown to be of a different origin to that on Earth, then that essentially means that the Universe is teeming with life. It seems almost impossible that life could spring up by chance on two adjacent planets if life was rare.”
Actually, that doesn’t follow at all. It’s like saying that if there are several species of monotreme mammals in Australia, they must be common all over the planet. They are not. If one doesn’t know the history, one cannot really insist on things like that.
Meanwhile, Rob Sheldon reminisces:
—
I had lunch with one of the Nasa scientists involved in exobiology or astrobiology as it is now called. He was rather incensed by the press reports of “flowing water on Mars”, because he had been saying this for years to staunch denials from HQ. NASA has stubbornly refused to admit to water on Mars for the past 40 years perhaps because they denied Gil Levin the discovery of bacterial life on Mars (the incontrovertible results of his “Labelled Release Experiment” on the Mars Viking Lander) by insisting that before he claimed biology, he had to show water. So for 40 years (Gil is now 88), they have repeated the mantra that there is no life because there is no
water.
Now mind you, the scoop that deposited Martian soil into Gil’s experiment in 1976 showed that the disturbed soil was darker under the surface, and one day later, the soil had brightened–the characteristic of wet soil. It is this same color change that Monday’s press release says is evidence of flowing water. What was insufficient evidence then, has become convincing evidence now. Why?
I read the bbc report (undoubtedly generated from NASA press release documents) and read the following sentences with outrage: “And there was eager anticipation for the results of Viking 1’s tests on soil samples.
One of them indicated what was interpreted as a signature for life – but was soon discounted as a bogus result.
And so for the best part of 20 years, Mars was seen as a dry dusty planet devoid of life.”
But now that we know the 2nd sentence is false, why do we still believe the 1st? The last paragraph of the article explains:
“Dr Matthew Balme of the Open University believes that this will be one of the most important experiments carried out in human history.
“If we find life on Mars and it can be shown to be of a different origin to that on Earth, then that essentially means that the Universe is teeming with life. It seems almost impossible that life could spring up by chance on two adjacent planets if life was rare.”
Let me parse this paragraph:
a) “if we find life” denies that Gil found it 40 years ago. It also motivates the researchers to claim credit for it. Looks like Gil better hang on for a few years or his Nobel prize will be reassigned.
b) “it can be shown to be of different origin” means that the author does not believe in interplanetary transport. Otherwise origins don’t matter. This means he is discounting the work on carbonaceous chondrites.
c) “different origin” suggests that the author believes in spontaneous generation. He obviously doesn’t believe in convergent evolution though.
This is a pickle, since one would think spontaneous generation would have created many different life forms on Earth, unless you think convergent evolution made them indistinguishable.
So why would Mars have different rules for spontaneous generation than Earth–surely not because Earth is less hospitable to life!
d) “that means the Universe is teeming” which is the Fermi question, if the Universe is teeming –“where is everybody?” So apparently the author doesn’t believe the Universe is “teeming”, which is a value-laden word that demands a negative answer. (Look at the connotations of “teeming” in Emma Lazarus’ poem: “the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”)
e) “it seems almost impossible…” because the author actually believes it to be impossible. Nonetheless, one should fund a Mars mission to look for life–why?–because for 40 years NASA has banned any instrument to look for life on Mars, so the Europeans are going to try. But if you aren’t going to believe your data, why send a mission?
Like a Spielberg movie, this contradictory viewpoint is supposed to keep everyone happy–Darwinists, ET fans, ET skeptics–and thereby maximize profits. But there’s one fairy godmother not invited to the party. And she still has the goods.
—
What the thirteenth fairy didn’t have, in the original Sleeping Beauty tale, was a plate at the table. She did have the power to cause trouble and vexation though.