Talk:Life on Mars/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Older comments

It was my understanding that the controversy about "canals" arose from a mistranslation of an Italian description of "channels," which aren't inherently manmade as canals are. I'm not certain of the provenance of this story, so I'm leaving it aside for someone more knowledgeable to perhaps include. Vivacissamamente 02:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Moved a bit here, as it makes no sense:

Evidence of such life would tend to bolster the theory of evolution by providing "another example" of a planet where life came out of inorganic materials without divine intervention. Theologians may be hoping that proof of a barren Mars will bolster the commonly-held view that life was specially created by God on the earth (see Evolution and creationism).

Evolution is not synonymous with abiogenesis, so the first paragraph is ill-informed.

The absence of life on Mars would not prove anything particular about life on Earth.

The search for life on Mars is a scientific investigation: philosophers and theologians are distinctly secondary onlookers, not participants, and so have been moved from the topic paragraph to the end. - Nunh-huh 20:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If there is life on Mars, or even if there was and is no longer life on Mars, the ruling class will never allow that information to seep out. The broad masses of people must be kept in a placid, perpetually fearful state in order to be better controlled. Any challenge to religious doctrine will be severely repressed, as a challenge to religious orthodoxy is the same as a challenge to political control. Meanwhile our rulers will take on the "burden" of knowing whether or not life exists elsewhere. 165.155.110.74 13:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)pcl

Just an odd thought, organisms similar to those on earth could easily be possible, such as an endolith which doesn't require oxygen or sunlight, and could survive with only the minerals within the rocks in the Martian crust...I don't have scientific evidence, it's just a thought I've thrown out into cyberspace. I guess I can already see a problem with my "theory": what does an endolith evolve from? Does that thing also have the ability to survive or exist on Mars? I'm open to questions, comments, and criticism. - QuiGonJinn18:42:20 (MST), February 18, 2004

  • We have good evidence Mars in the distant past was quite wet and warmer than it is now. Life is thought to have begun on Earth soon after conditions for it were right. If life began on Mars also, when it was warm and wet, it may have adapted to cooler and drier conditions, and persisted in rocks and soil under the surface. Jonathunder 19:01, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

"Life on Mars" was also a short-lived (only one year) toy series from LEGO. 16:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The final section seems poorly worded to me; a political science professor who claims he knows about Martian life via remote viewing certainly is not a part of "academia", at least as far as life on Mars goes. Maybe if it was about who would win the presidential elections of 2008. Titanium Dragon 04:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

I removed this article from the good article nominations page because it lacks an adequate lead section, and also omits a major facet of the topic by neglecting to discuss in any detail the hugely important case of the ALH84001 meteorite. It also needs a lot more about the Viking tests - two of the three tests gave positive results, the third was inconclusive, so there needs to be much more about the subsequent analysis which concluded that the positive results were not in fact due to life. Worldtraveller 21:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Formaldehyde on Mars

The ME PFS has been back in operation since November last year.[1] so the text has been updated. --Denoir 20:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • fair enough; my bad. Mlm42 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Presence of water on Mars

User 146.230.128.29 has inserted a paragraph consisting of speculation dressed up as statements of fact, without quoting sources. This edit is not NPOV and not verifiable (and poorly written), and I suggest we delete it - I will do so if no one objects. Example - "There is life sustaining water on Mars" is at odds with statements elsewhere in the article which claim no evidence has been found for water on Mars now, although it may have been present in the past, and which quote their sources. Example - "1 in 10 million microbes can survive collisions" - what type of collisions, and what is the evidence for this statistic ? Example - "Earth and Mars have probably cross pollinated many times in the past 5 billion years" - what evidence or source if there for this statement ? Example - "Scientists have discovered that there are pockets of ice near the Martian equator" - what evidence or source is there for this statement ? GeraldH 09:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • i agree, and have reverted it. Mlm42 14:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent discovery of fluids flowing on Mars

Just to nip any speculation in the butt: Recently scientists found evidence for some **fluid** flowing across the surface of Mars see here: [2] and here: [3]. Especially the last article on news.bbc.co.uk suggests that scientists think that liquid carbon dioxide might be the cause of this. Apparently liquid CO2 is thought to exist on Mars. However, I consider this highly unlikely based on this article: [4]. In the graph of carbon dioxide on this page it can be seen that to get liquid CO2 you need a pressure of at least (approx.) 8bar-abs. As far as I know such pressures are not common on Mars ;-). At lower pressures gaseous CO2 will change into solid CO2 (see [5]),this happens at -78°C @ 1bar-abs.

So, before somebody starts suggesting CO2 to be the cause I would suggest they make a very good case for that. Just my €0.02 Mausy5043 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible Martian sculptures

Please check the "see also" link to Possible Martian Sculptures. I think the article is seriously flawed, and have started a discussion about it. Perhaps it should not be linked from this article.

LjL 22:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusing edits

I have reverted the "illegal" copy/paste move of this article to Life on Mars (scientific theory), and created Life on Mars (disambiguation). I think each article now has its correct edit history and talk page history.--Srleffler 04:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Life on Mars (theory) → Life on Mars – Another editor moved this page without discussion. I propose to move it back to the original name. Srleffler 11:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support what most readers will look for under this name; parenthetical dabs should be avoided when possible. Septentrionalis 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Its certainly unnecessary to have the parenthetical dabs here. Voortle 19:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - such a move should never be made without discussion. Move it back. - DavidWBrooks 21:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per above, a move should only be made after discussion and consensus.--TBCTaLk?!? 20:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well as everyone's supported it I've redirected the page. It took me a few minutes to find the life on mars tv show which kinda annoyed me :/ Freddie McPhyll 14:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Your redirect was inappropriate. The appropriate redirect is that Life on Mars should point (for now) to this article, so that the functionality is the same as it will be after the move. If you're looking for an article on some minor topic and you end up at a more common use of the same term, you should look for the dablink at the top of the article, which will take you to the disambiguation page. --Srleffler 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm really sorry guys hope I didnt muck things up too much, I guess I'll think a bit more carefully next time I try and do something. We've all got to learn from our mistakes. Sorry again. Freddie McPhyll 20:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.. i must say i'm a little confused as to what's happening here, but nevermind.. i don't know why the requested move box was removed, but in any case i'm in favour of the Life on Mars page being the main article, and a for other uses see Life on Mars (disambiguation) tag on top.. i'd move it myself, but i haven't figured out how to move the history and talk pages as well. Mlm42 16:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm completely lost with all these life on Marses ... no life in my brain. I've returned the box, which I removed thinking the move had been completed - so to ignore what has been moved so far, the current situation is:
Life on Mars redirects to Life on Mars (disambiguation), which contains links to articles on the theory, the song and the TV series, each of which has a For other uses, see Life on Mars (disambiguation) note at the top.
We want to turn it into this:
Life on Mars as the theory, with a link at top saying For other uses, see Life on Mars (disambiguation) and the disambig. page will have links to the song and the TV series. Er, is that right? - DavidWBrooks 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Life on Mars should redirect here until the move is complete. Several people keep switching it to point to the disambiguation page, which breaks all the links that are meant to point here. I switched the redirect back to here and left a note there advising editors not to change that redirect again.--Srleffler 04:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Aldux 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should move Viking results from "History" to "Modern" section

The [Viking_biological_experiments | Viking experiments] were after all the first experiments looking for Martian life. And I gather the "labeled release" experiment has never been obseleted by subsequent observations. -- KarlHallowell 03:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

AC Clark

Why is he in and not some scientist? He is not more qualified than most other people.--Stone 10:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It got a lot of attention, because of his high profile, so it's something that casual readers of this article might be expecting to see. I almost removed it, but I don't think the wording gives it too much weight. - DavidWBrooks 17:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Removing was a little harsh, but to move it to a seperate section or combine it with a few lines to the article about the "spiders" seen on mars. These are dark dust particle from geysers looking like giant spiderson the lighter sand of mars.--134.76.234.75 17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hrmmm, I went ahead and deleted it. I don't think idle speculation even by famous people really warrants inclusion. Something like the Cydonia/"face on Mars" stuff is worth mentioning briefly due to how widespread it is. I won't get into an edit war, if Clarke sneaks back in, but I really don't see what that adds. -- KarlHallowell 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

On ALH84001

An anon recently added this claim on the ALH meteorite: "This explanation was disproved, however, and it was discovered that the worm-like appearance of the fossils was due to the coating of gold on the samples for viewing under a microscope (without the gold it appeared very rough, square, and generally more rock-like)." This is without a source, and while this argument has been made, McKay et al. seem to have controlled for it: "McKay and his co-workers tested for these kinds of artificial features by examining other rock samples besides ALH 84001 that had been treated exactly the same as the ALH 84001 samples with the bacteria shapes." [6] I'm not sure this belongs here at all, as it is not even in the ALH article itself, but if it does, it certainly needs a better summary than the above -- which I have removed for now.--Eloquence* 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent discoveries

Could some please mention the article that was recently published in "Geophysical Research Letters" (30th January 2007) that claimed current robots do not dig deep enough? - User:Vcxzfdsa

Do not revert reasonable edits without providing a reason

FayssalF, please do not revert edits that have a reason provided without giving a reason for the revert. I believe that the TV series might be looked up often because it is currently running. While I am fine with "Life on Mars" returning this article and not the talk page, since this one is certainly the most wanted, I believe a direct link is in order. Please see Help:Reverting, WP:AGF and for this specific edit WP:D. --84.178.83.115 19:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience. The revert wasn't part of AGF. However, i apologize. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess being an IP adress editor gets some deserved scepticism about my edits. --84.178.94.141 18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

DavidWBrooks, please do not change the redirect back to the state it was in February. Once again, my rationale is that the other article is bigger and arguably gets the same amount of hits as this page (it also seems that more edits were made on the TV series page, arguably showing a higher interest), since one is an important scientific question that gets into spotlight from time to time, the other is a quite popular british TV series. So it might even be considered to redirect "Life on Mars" on the disambig instead of this page, if the TV series remains popular after the first run of all planned 16 episodes. --84.178.105.220 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I missed that it was discussed here; my apologies.
I made the change because it's bad to have overlapping redirects - the TV show is also on the disambig page, so we're telling people two different ways to find the same thing. But if you feel the show is popular enough to warrant the special mention, fine. (This could cause a problem if somebody else decides some other reference is also important enough to need special attention, then it gets cluttered and the disambig page becomes redundant. But I don't think that will happen here.) - DavidWBrooks 20:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppurtunity to create New Article on terminology of life on other planets (NOT LITTLE GREEN MEN!)

Organisms on Mars are referred to as Martian. What are organisms (e.g bacteria) on the other planets referred to as?

I have often been curious about this, Wikipedia only cites Jovian as life on Jupiter. Where can the OFFICIAL information be found?

I may have heard the terms Venetian (Venus), Plutonian (Pluto) and Neptunian (Neptune) used in various books. However on Wikipedia none are mentioned and the latter is referred to only as a fictional race in Futurama!

I am just curious for myself, although other people might be as well. So this could be a good opportunity for a Wikipedia user who is knowledgable in Astronomy and Grammer, to perhaps create an article/list or contribute this information to other articles.

Please could you let me know if anyone decides to do this as I would be most interested, thankyou. Ryan4314 05:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No opinion about a new article on the terminology. However, here's the adjectives for each planet:
These can be found on each planet's article, under "Adjectives" in the infobox. -kotra 00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So there's no official adjective for Uranus then? And BTW, I don't believe that an article/list for adjective forms of planets would be a very good idea, considering how few have names other than "[name of star] b" or something similar, and most of those being the eight planets of the Sol system. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
We wouldn't need an article anyway, as the Ajective is mentioned in every planets info box. Also "Uranian" is the name used on the articles info box. Ryan4314 15:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I forgot Uranus. I've added it to my previous post now. -kotra 21:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Puddles" of Water Sighted on Mars

Can somebody work this in, I wouldn't know how to: [7]Turk brown 11:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

in an interesting twist to this story, the work is done by the son of gilbert levin - the guy that claimed that the viking landers found life on Mars, sbandrews (t) 11:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
There are now multiple articles with indications that there is plenty of frozen water on Mars. For example, see Astrobiology Magazine that states that "The amount of water trapped in frozen layers over Mars' south polar region is equivalent to a liquid layer about 11 metres deep covering the planet." And note that Solarviews points out the highest recorded temperature on Mars was 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Thus it is likely that within 30 degrees latitude of the equator the ice melts. Finally, type in "martian water flows" into google -- and see what shows up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunSw0rd (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 July 2007
yes - but all this is included in this article already in the water section - and btw it isn't ice melting that is the issue, its whether liquid water is stable on Mars' surface due to the low atmospheric pressure bringing the water above its tripple point and so evaporating, sbandrews (t) 20:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah but that is not the only consideration (although it is a valid one.) For example, here on Earth there is a liquid subterranean lake in Antarctica called Lake Vostok which is 2 1/2 miles below the surface. It is possible that Mars may also contain subsurface liquid water, although it is likely that such conditions would be uncommon.
A second consideration is that subsurface water may be frozen much of the time and then melt during the warm seasons but, being subsurface, it will not quickly evaporate.
A third consideration is that there is earth life that can survive being frozen into the ice and then when the ice melts, the life goes on (some Notothenioids.) This is demonstrated by certain fish. If there is (or was) life on Mars, good places to look would be Tharsis and Elysium -- since those are volcanic areas and have had subterranean heat sources. And of course lichens on Earth can survive under very low temperatures and very little water.
All in all very interesting data, and giving us a much different perspective than 10 or 20 years ago when it was assumed that geologic "flows" must be due to liquifying carbon dioxide -- since it is now believed that there is very little frozen carbon dioxide on Mars. SunSw0rd 13:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The *puddles* paper has been withdrawn after someone pointed out the area involved was on a crater wall :D [8], enjoy sbandrews (t) 17:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not surprising to me. Of course, I was referring to "flows" not puddles, see here. SunSw0rd 20:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Gillevinia straata

I've just come across this page, which rather POVly asserts that there is indeed life on Mars -- the page's title is the proposed name of the bacteria supposedly found there. I've added a "Factual accuracy disputed" template to it: can an editor familiar with the issue at hand have a look over there and see if there's anything worth saving and merging into this article, and nom it for deletion if not? Thanks! -- simxp (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Deep Caverns

Recently some very dark circular areas have shown up on Martian photos. From this official NASA site we see this statement: "Black spots have been discovered on Mars that are so dark that nothing inside can be seen. Quite possibly, the spots are entrances to deep underground caves capable of protecting Martian life, were it to exist. The unusual hole pictured above was found on the slopes of the giant Martian volcano Arsia Mons. The above image was captured three weeks ago by the HiRISE instrument onboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter currently circling Mars. The holes were originally identified on lower resolution images from the Mars Odyssey spacecraft..."

Also, here is a scientific paper discussing these "holes": go here.

Interesting, yes? Follow the links to see the photos. SunSw0rd 20:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See this article here as well. SunSw0rd 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Included in Mars#Geography, could well do with some discussion here too though, regards sbandrews (t) 21:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Regolith vs Soil

Soil is a naturally occurring, unconsolidated or loose material on the surface of the earth, capable of supporting life. Regolith is a layer of loose, heterogeneous material covering solid rock. Who is insinuating that there is knowledge of life on Mars? No one has proved that there is life on Mars or if Mars's surface could support Earthly life. Why is the term "soil" used rather than the correct terminology of regolith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.16.173 (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Trees on Mars

This section appears to be original research and should be removed if references from reliable sources aren't added soon. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --El Ingles (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed, per WP:NORand WP:V Jeepday (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that it's information published by JPL and Malin Space Science Systems, it's not exactly original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetreesonmars (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are published by JPL and Malin Space Science Systems. Your interpretation of them is not. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 17:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Green man

I've removed the section on the "figure" in the NASA picture. Put it back if you like but it belongs in a section on spoofs, if anywhere. I admit the cropped picture looks impressive but the actual photograph puts this into perspective. http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/207495main_Spirit.jpg Robertcornell68 (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It has caused some waves in the press, was in yesterdays The Times (amongst others) and is on today's front page of the BBC news online.--Alf melmac 11:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That's typical of the British press' appalling science coverage. The published image gives no sign of scale. The whole picture has bits of the Mars Rover in shot and clearly shows that the man is about the size of Action Man (or GI Joe) if that. I stand by my edit. Robertcornell68 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed the size of the form in question is evidently very small when the whole picture is shown. Life though comes in many sizes from the microscopic upwards, the newspapers are reporting that some are taking this as evidence of life on Mars. I in no way disagree with you that 'it's only a small rock for goodness sake', but in the spitit of neutrality, we report citeable, verifiable info on the topic.--Alf melmac 11:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, try this: the source quoted is the BBC article. - A magnified version of the picture, posted on the internet, appears to some to show what resembles a human form among a crop of rocks.

While some bloggers have dismissed the image as a trick of light, others say it is evidence of an alien presence. - It doesn't even name the site it was published on. Since when have "some bloggers" or "others" been acceptable sources. It's sad if Wikipedia has higher standards than the BBC or the Times but we do. This paragraph is not sourced and should be removed. Robertcornell68 (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've transfered the BBC cite to 'cite news' style and added The Times and The Daily Telegraph online articles.--Alf melmac 12:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You've convinced me. I've added some direct quotations to give the article more substance. Robertcornell68 (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted your last edit. Please see WP:POINT. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 13:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Good. I apologise. Some people can't give up cocaine. I have a weakness for sarcasm. That doesn't change the fact that all three are secondary sources. There is no serious scientific debate on this issue and it doesn't belong in a scientific article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertcornell68 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it belongs here either and if there's no additional coverage in the next week or so I'd support removing the section on the basis of WP:RECENTISM. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 14:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no issue with that, I did have an issue with it being removed on the grounds that it was a "spoof", when it clearly is not.--Alf melmac 14:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little shocked to find this reference in wikipedia in what is supposed to be a serious article. The figure in question is only a few cm high, and must be really patient - since its in a color picture, it means that it sat through 3 black and white photographs, plus the transmit time in between each one, plus the time to change the color filter. For a fuller explanation, check out the Planetary Society's analysis: http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001305/. Can someone point out to me what standards allow newspaper accounts of blog postings to be used as sources in wikipedia? Dtolman (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Whewell's views about life on Mars

The article implies to the causual reader that Whewell suggested that there was life on Mars in is "Of the Plurality of Worlds" publication. However, it is my understanding, that rather than arguing in favour of "life on Mars" he actually agued against the possibility. I've been unable to find a copy of his book to review personally, but there is a discussion of it at the University of Chicargo Press's website here: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14318.ctl . Hope this helps. 131.227.74.134 (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the sources and references

I am in the process of reviewing the sources in this article and giving precedence to peer-reviewed scientific publications. For starters, I strongly suggest to delete the Ammonia section, because it was based on public media speculation, not on scientific publications. Please post your comments for or against deletion and your reason for it. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is no scientific basis for a hypothesis, then there's not much case for its inclusion in the article. Maybe a "speculation that ammonia whatever was unfounded" comment could be included but it's not necessary - so long as you're sure nothing fact-based has been published on it.
Also, I thought I'd point out a recent publication in Astrobiology, which you may find very useful. URL / DOI:10.1017/S1473550408004175
Best of luck with your efforts! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Excellent hypothesis, but article talk pages are not a forum. You are welcome to bring your question where it belongs to (probably outside of Wikipedia). Thanks! --Cyclopia (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

Crocco

News on perchlorate (March 2009): is a salt. What does salt do when dissolved in water? It lowers the freezing point of water. Therefore, if perchlorate exists in the Martian regolith, it may also be dissolved in the water we now know (thanks, also, to Phoenix) exists there. Although the temperature never rose above -20°C at any point during Phoenix’s lifetime, perchlorate turns out to be a very potent antifreeze substance, allowing water to remain in a liquid state regardless of the extreme atmospheric temperatures down to -70°C. Although far from being conclusive evidence about the existence of liquid water on the Martian surface, these Phoenix images do appear to show droplets of water on the lander’s leg. Before the discovery of perchlorate salt in the regolith, these images would probably have been written off as a curiosity, but now NASA scientists are actually entertaining the thought that liquid water can exist on the surface.--201.250.48.148 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The latest revert was made to delete the entries giving multiple (false) credits to Crocco.

  • The paper (proposal) by Mario Crocco on Jakobia was not peer reviewed: Crocco, Mario (2007 - 04 -14). "Los taxones mayores de la vida orgánica y la nomenclatura de la vida en Marte:". Electroneurobiología 15 ((2)): pp. 1-34) [9] and was placed online by his own office, at the mental institute in Buenos Aires where he works. This "Journal" has absolutely nothing to do with astrobiology but neurobiology therefore the lack of peer review.
  • Please note that Crocco performed no actual research on the subject, but only presented others' articles in order to justify his creation of the HIPOTHETICAL Jakobia kingdom.
  • Crocco is NOT the author of the paper on the van der Waals forces in the Icarus Journal, but MÖHLMANN Diedrich: Icarus, Volume 195, Issue 1, May 2008, Pages 131-139 Diedrich T.F. Möhlmann as shown here.

Please keep objectivity, no POV and make sure you read the references before quoting them. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi, BatteryIncluded; you have removed large sections of the page. Kindly assume most other editors are trying to improve articles. As Sticky Parkin has said to another, "For instance, if they remove a line of text, think why they might have removed it, or maybe even ask them. If they remove a large section of the page, that's usually a bit different.:) Even then, check they aren't removing vandalism or poor quality text themselves or removing slander. /.../ just remember most of the edits are made by human beings and think how you feel yourself if someone reverts you or something or calls you 'unconstructive' or a vandal. If you disagree with someone's edit, have a word with them rather than templating them, or discuss it on the article's talk page. /.../ Optigan has a point too but if you want to focus on this area, which can be 'fun' sometimes, use your human judgement and err on the side of caution. Sticky Parkin
Having said that, fellow editor BatteryIncluded, let me point you to some involuntary mistakes in your grounds to revert and thus deleting the large updating sections that previously were asked for.
  • The "Journal" has to do inter alia with life definition. It follows an uncommonly broad research style from a line that published on this topic in 1914 (and has online papers on this topic written since 1948), which is the section where the astrobiology papers are located. Your statement, "This "Journal" has absolutely nothing to do with astrobiology but neurobiology", is thus involuntarily mistaken.
  • Upon that mistake, you explain that "therefore the lack of peer review." Indeed, Croccco's papers were peer reviewed; the journal is a peer reviewed one (check it on the Instr. to authors, or Latindex). That it chanced to be published by the same state office where he works doesn't allow to think that peer reviewing was skipped.
  • It is also erroneous to affirm, "Please note that Crocco performed no actual research on the subject". First, the nomenclature is based on his school's definition of life, which is scarcely known outside Argentina. This approach by itself already deserves being communicated in articles for the scientific community. Second, in taxonomy arguing the taxa and selecting their grounds is an usual kind or research work. Third, and even more important, Croccco found the physical source of liquid water where no other have previously looked for.
This was done precisely because of his expertise in biophysical interstices such as the brain's intercellular one, his interest about Mars on family reasons as explained in the original lecture he imparted (not referred to in the article; this point may even be of personal interest to you, because of your personal interest and work on the history of the air army), and his know-how about the rheological problems with unmotile, structured water in the outer layers of very slender channels. As a result, all this allowed us to know about a minimum liquid water per volume of dirty ice, and thus set up flow calculations. All taken together, and the special look it involves, makes actual research.
  • All exobiological taxa ought to be "hypothetical" inasmuch as holotypes couldn't be brought to Earth on biosecurity reasons. Or, are you proposing to quit from exobiological endeavor because we know beforehand that all and any exobiological findings should be "hypothetical," in that sense?
  • Obviously Möhlmann (whom you didn't mention before my introducing him into the article) is the author of Möhlmann's paper. This paper took a different approach from Croccco's research and targetted a different assesment. Moreover, Möhlmann doesn't mention the rheology issues, less even he tried to quantify it, less even said anything about the renewability of this liquid water or related it (less, quantitatively) to the Viking LR observations understood as metabolism. You seemingly read my contribution updating the article a bit hurriedly; go read my editions again and you'll find that I didn't misattribute neither the other's work.
  • Besides, as I understand TEGA & the other analyses, biomolecules couldn't have been found. Even if they were, the planning is epistemologically mistaken: they aren't life. Croccco found a source of permanent liquid water and quantified a minimum for its flow; Möhlmann set a maximum; others have only looked for macroscopic bodies of liquid water. Croccco's work on neurobiological interstices (in the early '60s) allowed him to discard the structured water layers and assess the remaining flow. The holotype issue is also important, I think. Please go back to the updates I introduced and kindly try to rescue the ones that, on second thoughts, you might find valuable, or comment here.
  • Finally, kindly reflect that you deleted the whole of my contribution, including the very reference to Möhlmann, whom you cannot without falsehood attribute the work by Crocco. Remember that you, who worked yourself earlier on the article, didn't mention (or presumably know of) Möhlmann, neither the article did. Why, then, to impoverish it by reverting my contributions, which were asked for in a label for "update"?
The article stays much impoverished now, is misleading (the only liquid water mentioned for microbes metabolism is that of macroscopic water bodies) and distorts both facts ("follow the water" is reduced to macrobodies; ignores epistemological issues; skips over taxonomy issues) and credits.
Although I find your later words unfair and a bit belligerant, I know of your valuable contributions in other occasions and articles, and I'd not accuse you of falseness or malice. Rather let me be constructive and invite you to revert your reversion, then to civilizedly start discussing every point unhurriedly. As Sticky Parkin says, reversion is mainly designed to revert vandalism rather than making changes to articles. Work with your fellow editors to improve articles. There is no deadline.

Later, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.34.238 (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your defence does not change the fact that the article by Crocco is not serious, worthwile research. It is just speculation and a nomenclature proposal totally unrelated to facts. As a scientist myself, I can guarantee a lot of stuff is published everyday on all sort of (peer reviewed scientific) journals, defending all kind of wacky theories. However we should stick with what is scientific consensus: and scientific consensus is that there is no proof and only very weak evidence (at best) of Martian life. Until unambiguous detection of Martian life is achieved, no nomenclature attempt can be taking seriously -Crocco is almost doing taxonomy of angels. I am sure you are doing what you do in good faith, and I am sure we both want to improve the article -but on this issue I stand with User:BatteryIncluded on the revertion. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see in your opinion any discussion of the points above, Cyclopia. Only a derogatory PoV misexpressed in words so much harsh that it seems you are an expert in Crocco's work - entitled to abuse it. Let me think, on this topic you aren't. As I'm a scientist too, please argue. Point at least to a single technical inaccuracy, not to resignifying generalities. This would benefit us all. BTW, it is the purpose this page is, too. And I find it an educational exercise, at least for myself.
Let's start on what you say. Namely, that no nomenclature attempt can be taken seriously until unambiguous detection of Martian life is achieved. What does operatively mean "taking seriously"? That British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley's work "is not serious, worthwile research", "just speculation ... totally unrelated to facts", "wacky", "we should stick with ...scientific consensus", "taxonomy of angels" because he nomenclated as Bathybius haeckelii an albuminous precipitate?? Such rude and academically affronting expressions as yours are improper of any scientist, let me say. Even if mistaken, the author of the present case has made its work, and finely promoted science in so doing.
But lets go to technicalities, Cyclopia. Remember Mars three years ago. It was thought as almost deprived of water, with cyrrhus-like tenuous clouds suppossed of carbon dioxide, and with the nine Viking Labeled Release controlled experiments contradicted by a gas chromatograph experiment. Then in some six months things unexpectedly changed. The gas chromatograph was shown insensitive to contradict the LR observations, the tenuous cyrrhus-like clouds were identified as water, and surface dirty ice too, not to mention the progress in extremophile research on Earth, that I assume you are well acquainted with. At these changes, a scientist reacted by publishing taxonomical research; explained that for exobiology, holotypes are to consist in radioed data (exactly like for quarks, leptons, and force carriers in particle physics, BTW) so as to ground an opinion in biosecurity issues; pointed that what you, Cyclopia, call "only very weak evidence (at best) of Martian life" on the proposed criteria amount to a holotype to be later refined (since holotypes as radioed data are to be progressively refined); calculated the minimum liquid water on water dirty ice; found it compatible with the solvent requirement of the holotype interpreted as a description of metabolism (Möhlmann's work instead worked out the maximum, which Möhlmann set at a billion times more liquid water than the amount Crocco deemed enough to sustain the data-sized activity deemed as metabolism); explained for this and for Schulze-Makuch/Houtkooper models the need of taking into account the cytoskeletally and organel-adsorbed structured water. In doing this, he clarified the scenario for us all, whether we agreed or not with all his opinions. (I don't).
Your rude treatment isn't thus a proper payment for this academic service. But I find an excuse for you: it rather reflects, IMHO, a simple previous mistake by BatteryIncluded. This fellow editor is fairly good at narco-submarines and military aviation, but he misunderstood the above contribution as an ungrounded propaganda for the Martians' existence. He didn't understood the epistemological issues at play (life isn't identified on its components) or the taxonomical issues in a science (exobiology) that cannot bring holotypes to Earth for shared examination (for comparison, remember the "Flag on the Moon = falsity" discussions). Like yourself, Cyclopia, BatteryIncluded assumes that the contamination issues and decontamination prices don't move huge interests (commercial, political, and others) influential on uninterested "consensus", and doesn't consider how -even so- the expert opinion on Mars biosphere changed in these two years. But no. Despite what BatteryIncluded says in this and the Spanish entry about Crocco, none scientific article appeared contradicting Crocco's work. This is for good reasons. Phoenix's results keep as valid the nomenclature of the Viking-radioed activity as metabolism.
"Valid" is a technical word. I know you know what it means, Cyclopia, but I believe that BatteryIncluded doesn't yet. Nevertheless, I think readers would agree that this is long enough for today. So, as for closing, I regret that the article got substantially impoverished by BatteryIncluded mistake on the nature of Croco's technical contribution, and look forward for fellow editors to continue these interesting exchanges. They may well serve as a supplement to the article, too. I hope some to address the specific points in the previous list.--201.250.32.67 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Most of the issues you bring have been answered by BatteryIncluded. I just want to add that (1)I am a molecular biologist too -this doesn't make a better editor of me, but at least I have knowledge on the subject and (2)T.H.Huxley at least did work himself with the substance and simply falled in error, made in an age where biology was still in its infancy and such errors were more than forgivable. M.Crocco is doing speculation on extremly partial, at most tentative, other's people published data and proposing a taxonomy based on that -in modern times. I think there is no possible comparison between the two. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Cyclopia, none of the issues has been hitherto answered by BatteryIncluded. Were I´m wrong, show us where I am. As about ¨speculation¨, as you derogatorily call it, you simply didn´t read even the essential papers, and are repeating BatteryIncluded´s prejudice. Once more, I invite you to academic dialogue. Answer the proposed points -you have a proper preparation- which are waiting for examination here. Otherwise the discussion would be changed by you into personal differences, that aren´t anyway constructive, and the article will remain impoverished and misleading. Thus please try to read, examine by yourself the calculations, and say publicly what you think of what you dare to call ¨speculative¨ work. (The word is derogatory - would you use it on Watson & Crick work leading to DNA identification?).
Yes, the issues have been answered by User:BatteryIncluded. It's you dismissing his answers. Also, you are evidently not aware of the basics of the scientific process. For example, you said below that there is no thing like weak data, that "data are facts". You're wrong. 1)Every scientist knows that artefacts, noise etc. plague all sorts of data 2)Every scientist knows that a single measurement with a single kind of instrument and technique is, at best, only suggestive and needs independent verification and control experiments 3)Every scientist knows that interpretation of data is always a tricky and complex subject, and that's another reason for experiments to be repeated and control experiments must be done 4)Every scientist keeps in the back of his mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Now, in the case of Viking data and so-called Jakobia: 1)Perchlorate can have created the artefact of metabolism in the LR data 2)We only have a couple of measurements by mean of a couple of identical probes -and independent test would be needed 3)There is a lot of battle on interpretation of those data,due also to concerns of (1) and 4)For those reasons, we have no extraordinary proof whatsoever -in fact, we have no proof. We only know that there is something capable to react with something else.
Said that, let me stress again that 1)no matter how you can bend the subject, interpretating such inconclusive, weak data with back-of-the-envelope calculations and name-dropping some taxonomy is just speculation. Speculation is not derogatory -it can be very useful,at times, and speculating is part of the scientific process. However, unless Crocco brings his hands (or novel robotic hands) on the Martian soil and does a long series of conclusive experiments confirmed by third parties, it will remain speculation. 2)no matter how you can fiercely believe Crocco, scientific consensus ignores him (and with good reasons,I'd say), so WP has to treat it this way. Sorry. 3)stop comparing Crocco to people like Watson & Crick. It's simply ridicolous. If Crocco was as this level, he would have his work published by Nature, Science or something like that.
Conclusion is that Crocco it's just a fringe theory that WP can describe only as that. If you have troubles with that, WP is not the place you want to argue: go to scientific conferences on Martian geology and geochemistry, publish papers on the subject and let yourself be heard. When you will obtain significant consensus, come back. Good luck. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem I see with our unidentified guest, is that he seems unaware of why Levin's theory (and Crocco's taxon) is a fringe theory: Levin et al have arbitrarly ignored the established characteristics required for an object to be considered alive, and they have manufactured their own concept of what consitutes life, a concept endorsed only by their own magazine (Electroneurobiología). The universal consensus is that "life" is a characteristic of things that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena: homeostasis, organization, metabolism (anabolism and catabolism), growth, adaptation, response to stimuli and reproduction. Scientists have found nothing of these on Mars, and at best, concluded an "indeterminate" result fromt the single metabolism experiment. Does the LR experiment deserve to be clarified? Yes! Is it proof of life? Absolutely not. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, but the problem I see is much simpler. Crocco is a fringe scientist pushing a fringe theory that almost no one else accepts in the scientific community. This is facts, despite whatever anyone thinks -good or bad- of Crocco and his stuff. So WP should give it the coverage it deserves. Period. If someone wants to discuss further that theory and push it as valid, this someone should better go to an appropriate forum. I personally would be very happy to archive this whole pointless thread and give rest to this talk page :) --Cyclopia (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC). Welcome to Wikipedia. I am glad you are making use of this Discussion page.

The above sentences seem out of place here. For ordering the dialogue, I´ll reply on indented paragraphs, point by point.
  • My interest to edit and create a wide range of topics in Wikipedia does not take away the fact that I make my living as a molecular biologist. As a life scientist, believe me that I would be the first one to write here about microbial life on Mars, when and if, it is discovered.

Unfortunately, speculations are not useful in this encyclopedia and must be held back.

I contend you don´t yet understand the point. Calculations of liquid content in dirty ice aren´t ¨speculation¨. Study of the physical state of water in living microorganisms isn´t ¨speculation¨.
  • I never implied I deleted vandalism, only unsourced data, personal POV, and a false claim of an article by Möhlmann atributed to Crocco.
That´s incredible. And belated. First, Möhlmann´s work calculates a maximum (is this ¨speculation,¨ too?????) which is a billion times the minimum set by Crocco´s ¨speculation¨. Second, nowhere did I wrote it, anybody can read the version you deleted. You yourself that the data are referenced, not unsourced. The interpretation that it is PoV is only yours, and you didn´t even attempt to check in in the discussion page before deleting large sections. And if Möhlmann´s article is cited by name, as it is, How on Earth could it be falsely attributed to another author??
Kindly answer these questions, because ¨us¨, namely the readers and participants in this discussion page, are awaiting non-elusive clarification of these points.
  • You wrote: " As a result, all this allowed us to know about a minimum liquid water per volume of dirty ice, and thus set up flow calculations."

It is quite interesting to see the word "us" in your statement, which strongly suggest that you are part of Crocco's team and, therefore, you have a conviction and an agenda. Actually, your writting style is almost identical to that of Dr Crocco'.

Absurd. ¨Us¨ here means the readers and participants in this discussion page. You are making an ungrounded personal attack, which usually occurs by lack of arguments. Please try to discuss the technical topìcs, don´t speculate offensively.

The possitive aspect of this is that now we may have a frst hand view into into your logic.

Another sample of non-constructive, derogatory use of this discussion page. We are at work for Wikipedia.
Moreover, had I an agenda, I´d have attempted to revert or start a WoE, as most of us know is usual in these cases. I contrarily find valuable this dialogue, for the article and for us. Thus don´t try to present me wrongly and come back to the true topic.
  • You know very well there are journals and there are "journals", with everything in between. On scientific topics, it is a standard Wikipedia procedure to make use high quality and peer-reviewed articles. The most respected journals are specialized on a subject (say, astrobiology or neurobiology) and publish peer-reviewed articles. Crocco, being Director of the said Bs.As. hospital and publishing his own article in his own hospitl press system, is hardly considered to have been peer-reviewed by astrobiologists.
You are injuring the reviewers, the people on the journal, and the author, without anything else than derogatory speculation. I find it useful, you having voiced your stance so clearly.

His paper is a review of old data with an unusual conclusion without the hard facts to support it.

Should I repeat again this? ¨in some six months things unexpectedly changed. The gas chromatograph was shown insensitive to contradict the LR observations, the tenuous cyrrhus-like clouds were identified as water, and surface dirty ice too, not to mention the progress in extremophile research on Earth, that I assume you are well acquainted with. At these changes, a scientist reacted by publishing taxonomical research; explained that for exobiology, holotypes are to consist in radioed data (exactly like for quarks, leptons, and force carriers in particle physics, BTW) so as to ground an opinion in biosecurity issues; pointed that what you, Cyclopia, call "only very weak evidence (at best) of Martian life" on the proposed criteria amount to a holotype to be later refined (since holotypes as radioed data are to be progressively refined); calculated the minimum liquid water on water dirty ice; found it compatible with the solvent requirement of the holotype interpreted as a description of metabolism (Möhlmann's work instead worked out the maximum, which Möhlmann set at a billion times more liquid water than the amount Crocco deemed enough to sustain the data-sized activity deemed as metabolism); explained for this and for Schulze-Makuch/Houtkooper models the need of taking into account the cytoskeletally and organel-adsorbed structured water. In doing this, he clarified the scenario for us all, whether we agreed or not with all his opinions. (I don't).¨


I say so because, as you know, any experiment is only as good as its controls, reproduction and verification.

Do you ignore the experimental data readioed by Viking mission? Do you ignore their magnitudes and controls? Or are you blaming Crocco for having being the NASA who brought back the data??

The LR experiment by the Viking program produced a 'positive' but without confirmation of biomolecules,

This is the epistemological error I mentioned already many times. Please, try to understand what I´m saying. Only metabolism is proof of life. Biosignatures can be dead. Occam´s razor prevents using biosignatures except as heuristics.


it MUST be atributed to something else.


It is exactly the reverse. Biosignatures without confirmation by metabolism, MAY be atributed to something else. Metabolism without confirmation by biosignatures stands by itself as proof for life.

Finally, we are progressing (hopefully) in our understanding! Glad to have had occasion to clarifying this. I´m happy that you mentioned that, BatteryIncluded.


If the LR equipment had been the "only" test needed to find life, why were other equipment/techniques included? Simple: Need for confirmation and crosschecking.

No, that´s wrong. NASAs 1969 selection was for independent probes.


By all standards, that confirmation did not happen. You know that.

It wasn´t necessary. Moreover, another Mexican show in 2006 that gas chromatograph was insensitive for this use (see Navarro González´ 2006 PNAS report).


Also, the GC assay was not "shown" to be insensitive to contradict the LR observations; it is an untested theory that it was insensitive enough.

Again. Everything is an untested theory for you, BatteryIncluded? It´s redolent of creationists´ blaming evolution by its being a ¨theory¨. Anyway, this isn´t what PNAS´ article says.


Yet, the GC turned negative.

And?? It was a faulty design.


The Gas Exchange turned negative and the Pyrolytic Release test was negative.

They were not aimed to test for life! Pyrolitic experiment heated to 900 ºC de material!


Everybody's math gives a Negative life result at best,

Also Opportunity. But this rover wasn´t designed to test for life. Why you don´t count it also? It´s the same case.


so an "inconclusive" result was a very generous verbal conclusion, which still stands today.

Stands in doubt. The planet´s picture much changed in the time and this is why it remains valid to interpret the data from the nine Viking LR experiments and controls as metabolic.


  • The absence of superoxidants on the surface of Mars does not prove the existence of Jakobia.
Obviously, it proves untenable the old opinion that life on Mars was prevented by a superoxidant responsible for the planet´s color.


  • You wrote: "All exobiological taxa ought to be "hypothetical".

Well, I agree and we must strive to keep Jakobia in that precise context.

Great! I only suspect, that for you ´hypothetical´ means ¨to be discarded¨, while in science it rather enjoys a more instrumental role.


  • You are right in that biomolecules have not been found. I will not argue against that. And don't you think that biomolecules are required in order to produce any metabolism? There is no metabolism without a biological organism.
Agreed also! Nine well controlled experiments can nowadays be interpreted as metabolism. What do you then infer from that?


  • Your use of Möhlmann's reference was what we call a "weasel" use of words, giving the impression Crocco actually did scientific research on Martian soil, not just proposed a new taxon.
Had it been so, was it needed to delete from the article so large sections to amend it?


Howcome you do not quote a Crocco's research article on liquid water on Mars? After all if "Crocco found the physical source of liquid water where no other have previously looked for", it should have most certainly been published in Science journal No?

No. Even Möhlman´s got to Icarus.

Astrobiology journal. No? The Astrophysical Journal. No? The International Journal of Astrobiology No? Well, certainly in the Astrobiology Journal Club!! No? Not even in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society? No? Hmmmmm..... Maybe I am not looking in the right places, if you could provide us with the journal reference, it will be much apreciated and certainly included in the article 'Geology of Mars'.

So, you cannot do the calculations by yourself, then? Interesting. ¨What my net cannot catch isn´t fish.¨ And Argentinian sources are third-world ones ... Hmmmmm..... Maybe I am not receiving a fair assessment from you.


I did notice Möhlmann's reference

Because of this discussion. You welcome.


and will look into it, and will likely be used in the correct context.

How that? Did you NOT YET read Möhlmann's reference? How then do you dare to discuss the topic of microscopic water sources for life solvent in arid, frozen habitats?


Note as well, that your text suggest that the Phoenix lander confirmed the existence of water as advanced by Crocco.

Dirty ice is water ice, not carbon dioxide. This is what the Phoenix found. It validates Crocco´s work (and would have discarded it, if shallow subsurface ice had been rather proved CO2).


The search for liquid water on Mars is practically Universal and can not be atributted to Crocco,

Absurd, nobody claimed that.


who has -as far as I can tell- no access to the JPL or any other NASA or ESA facilities or their scientific comitees.

Mexico is closer, yes.


I am concerned in the correct context of this article, and can do without weasel words and weasel phrases.

Well, GO! I´m waiting for an usual academic dialogue.

I do understand that Croco certainly has his place in this story (actually, I think it may have been me who included his name in this article) and his proposed taxon has been included. There is no attempts from any editor -as far as I can tell- to exclude his proposed taxonomic system.

Agreed.


  • The discovery of additional extremophiles on Earth is NOT proof of the existence of Jakobia. Yet I proudly suppot exobiology research.
OK. Let me add, science of late learned much from earthly extremophiles, up to the very point of stirring reinterpretation of the previous reading of Viking LR data.


  • I also have interest in Mars. If I make use of bacteriology for transfection in my daily work on molecular biology, does that entitle me to claim glory for any Jakobia if found?
Only if you work on Mars, BatteryIncluded.


Mybe if I study capillaries I will be credited for liquid water find? OK, At least let me have the credit for the membrane polarity of the deepest fish found in the 22nd century.  ;-)

We´ll us continue on this Wikipedia´s discussion page until the 22nd century? That´s bullying!  :-)


  • Claiming that Jakobia is a biohazard, is a laughable excuse for the inexistence of a physical sample of any Jakobia, or of biomolecules on Mars.
No way. It rather is a real concern by many people. To make short a long story, read references in Barry De Gregorio article on New Scientist in late 2007.


  • If biomolecules are not enough indication of life on Mars (against astrobiologist's criteria), howcome you think that a simple LR test was a SLAM-DUNK?


No simple LR test. They were nine controlled experiments and extremely careful statistics werent of use because of the clearness of the results. Did you study the graphics (on Science and Nature, if you wished to hear this).
  • I do not doubt Crocco has an interest on Mars and I do not argue that.
You neither do know what he did in the previous sixty years, the picture you provide of him isn´t correct. It´s rather like a WK article just saying that Isaac Newton was a British minter fond of hanging money falsifiers.


Let's not forget that his proposed taxon is based on extremely weak data,

Data are brute facts. They never could be weak.


which is considered as "inconclusive", at best, by the specialists.

Where??? Give at least ONE reference in the recent technical literature, BatteryIncluded ...

Such as the existence of Angels....

Did you never heard of Angelfire´s existence?

Anything beyond a proposed taxon, the burden of proof is on Crocco el al

This topic isn´t a concern for taxonomy, not for a discussion of the topics Crocco discusses. I´m again happy that you mentioned it. Crocco, in this specific regard, simply reinterpreted the Viking LR data. It´s for Eddington to sail into the Southern Seas to see in the eclipse if the stars move.

, not on Wikipedia

Certainly. We are to report the Phoenix´s news and their signification, namely what is scientifically valid after them.


or the scientific comunity.

No??


  • You wrote: "let me be constructive and invite you to revert your reversion, then to civilizedly start discussing every point unhurriedly."

Sir, I WANT you to be constructive, but we can not add a bunch of POV, unreferenced statements and unrelated information

Of course. That´s not the case.

and then discuss point-by-point its merit/deletion.

I cannot see how a scientist could escape justifying his or her deeds.

Wikipedia works the other way around: Find relevant articles from reputable journals (peer-reviewed) and include its citation in the article in its correct context. Fair enough? Please get started here: Help:Contents/Getting started

Then, do please include Möhlmann´s citation, explain its context, and keep all the explanations about microscopic sources of water that you deleted in 15 minutes, without previous discussion.

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Later,

Edited to add: I took a look at the abstract by Möhlmann and noticed that he derived equations for the water sandwich model.

Is this ´speculation´, I suppose?


There was no liquid water "discovery" as our guest wants us to believe.

Keep reading and tell us tomorrow, BatteryIncluded.


Again, be careful with the references you introduce and make use of them in their correct context!

Should I read only their abstract and immediately publish an opinion, as now you are -edificantly?- doing here?

Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We did some progress today, I think. Hope to get more later, BatteryIncluded. Cheers up!

A few more observations on why it is not advisable to expand on Levin's theory of current life on Mars:

  • Experts in the subject regard Levin's theory as a minority fringe theory. WP:UNDUE
Please reference a scientific journal claiming this.
  • I'd like to remind you of the "false positive" concept in chemistry. It is widely believed that the positive LR result from the Viking program was due to the presence of a strong oxidant in the soil, while its absence, was Levin's only claim of a true positive (eg: metabolism).
It NO LONGER is widely believed that any strong oxidant is in the soil.
  • Perchlorate was recently detected by the Phoenix lander; it is such a strong oxidizer that it used in rocket fuel, explosives, airbags and fireworks, making an even stronger case for a 'false positive' LR result and likely does away with any remaining argument that the LR result was valid.
Perchlorates are used in rocket fuel, precisely because they decompose (explode) at high temperature. Thus, your critics completely ignore the thermal control results of the Viking LR.
  • A chemical agent, whether capable of catlaytic activity or not, cannot be classified with taxonomy; that is pseudoscience. Since Levin considers the "active agent" to be an enzyme, and Crocco wants to give it a name, he should apply instead for an Enzyme Commission number (EC number).
The comment isn't logic, because the results and controls are interpreted as metabolism, not as enzyme. Please keep technical. Mounting an absurd scenario (entering a case of enzymes nomenclated as living organisms) and then declaring it pseudoscience doesn't benefit this discussion page.
  • Levin bases his theory on a single chemical test: the LR, meant to detect metabolism as we know it.
No; in fact, it is nine independent experiments and temperature controls. The number of separate data are huge.
  • I think we agree in that Levin and Crocco asume that this hypothetical biological organism makes use of a variety catalytic enzymes to carry on its metabolism.
Phoenix group did not say it failed to find organics. It said it detected peaks other than from water and CO2, and that it would identify them, but has not yet made any announcement.
  • Yet, their camp dismises the need to detect the physical components of this organism,
Enzymes from living beings aren't alive themselves, BatteryIncluded . It is another misunderstanding. The physical components (not symbiotic partners!) of an organism aren't alive themselves. The discussed authors indeed say -as I explained several times here- that it is epistemologically unsound taking components as if they were a sign of life. A good example is oil. Oil isn't alive. You may find components, BUT it doesn't entitle you to claim that you found living beings. Only finding metabolism enables you to claim it.
  • even claiming that it is "imposible" [10] to detect any Jakobia by looking for its physical body (biomarkers, biomolecules, etc).
This is simply incorrect. What they indeed declared impossible is overcoming the above epistemological argument. To find life you ought to find metabolism.
  • My question to you is: How does a non-physical entity is able to catalyze biochemical reactions?
Again you're misrepresenting the discussed articles' claims. Please keep serious.

-BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)



The very extense section has been by now superseded; see

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane.html

Martian Methane Reveals the Red Planet is not a Dead Planet

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/4243321/Mars-methane-discovery-hints-at-presence-of-life.html

Mars methane discovery hints at presence of life

The new results obviously bolster Crocco´s contention on Jakobia: Crocco, Mario (2007 - 04 -14). "Los taxones mayores de la vida orgánica y la nomenclatura de la vida en Marte:". Electroneurobiología 15 ((2)): pp. 1-34) [9] (The last entry was added by an anonymous user: (190.31.172.44) whiled he blanked the previous discusion. I reverted the page and added his comment above. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Please, Mr. 190.31.172.44 , sign your posts to keep this page legible and useful.)

Dear Mr. 190.31.172.44: The Wikpedia article already reflects the mystery of methane in the Martian atmosphere and its potential indication to life. 1) Crocco did not find life in Mars; 2) Crocco did not discover the methane in Mars. 3) Crocco has not published in any peer-reviewed journal. 4) Please do not blank this page. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


LR experiment

Our guest states: "The planet´s picture much changed in the time and this is why it remains valid to interpret the data from the nine Viking LR experiments and controls as metabolic." The same assay repeated 9 times (or 99 times) does not convert the false positive result into a valid one,

Contrarily, the scientific import of having a confirmation from nine experiments & controls is huge. Are you perhaps asking me to explain why?
Even further: The critics cite false positives in chemistry, but clearly avoid to mention the means by which the Viking LR ruled against false positives by its thermal controls.
  • but you are right in that there are new developments: the recent discovery of perchlorate in the soil as the likely cause of the false positive LR.
No chemical, including perchlorates, has yet been identified that has the thermal properties shown by the several Viking LR controls. Why do you ignore this? When does Ockham's Razor work??
  • I see no point of you discussing in favor of the merits of a result that the most brilliant minds on Earth discarded three decades ago,
Please quote a single serious article saying it, even in the 1970's. The statement is simple erroneous. Remember, one of Levin's coauthors in the Science paper was Joshua Lederbeg, a Chemistry Nobel prize. But I see no point in discussing authors' merits, as in ancient times.
  • and now factually understood with the role played by perchloride.
Your POV. It's factually untenable: see, next, my short comment about perchlorates on Mars:
  • Yet, our guest conveniently has chosen to ignore that an oxidizer (perchlorate) was identified in the soil, and long time believed to be the cause of the false positive in the LR experiment.
The destruction of perchlorates requires HCl and organic solvents at high temperature, as described in US Pat. 6800203. Where would the HCl and organic solvents come from??
  • Regarding the water: asuming that microscopic amounts of liquid water is found at the surface, it does not "prove" that Jakobia exists or that the LR experiment is valid, so I see no relevance to include Möhlmann's fine paper on mathematical water models in this section/article;
A mistake. Yes, surely, water doesn't prove fish (nobody claimed this, it is absurd). But a permanent source of liquid water at 100 ºC below the freezing point is a piece of the highest interest in the discussion regarding the interpretation as metabolism of the LR data in the new context build since late 2006 about Mars surface conditions.
  • again, Geology of Mars article may be the apropriate context for that paper, not under Gillevinia straata.
Don't agree. Liquid water amounts make microrheology relevant to metabolism and microorganisms' viability. Phyllosilicate formation make a separate issue.
  • In addition, the scientific comunity simply does not accept the creation of a taxon for an hypothetical inanimate chemical.
Obviously you are right in claiming this. The data were rather observed as metabolic results in a metabolism probe, and in this understanding the holotype issues entered discussion. As explained above, biosecurity concerns put special conditions to exobiological taxonomy.
  • At the risk of drifting into a forum-like debate I must now step back and remark that Gillevinia straata was soberly included here merely as a fringe theory, not as a scientific fact.
The LR results is indeed the scientific fact, which the article improperly and disinformatively discusses in its present version. I'll ask you to propose here a new wording for the point.

Cheers, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we achieved some progress in this discussion, BatteryIncluded, though the article stays impoverished, is still misleading (the only liquid water mentioned for microbes metabolism is that of macroscopic water bodies) and distorts facts ("follow the water" is reduced to macrobodies; ignores epistemological issues; skips over taxonomy issues). Hope we can work out still more. You may help if also avoid emotional or derogatory language. Later,


Hello. The research on the cycles of water in Mars is at its infancy, and surely new models, observations and measurements will follow, and those peer-reviewed articles should be included in Wikipedia where apropriate. Regarding the Viking's LR experiment, it was officially classified as inconclusive and it remains so. I would like to hear of any metabolic pathway that does not require of enzymes nor biomolecules ..... that is why Levin's theory remains a largely unsupported fringe theory, for which there are provisions:
"Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories."(Wikipedia:Fringe theories.)
In addition, the eccentric act of designating a taxon to a single chemical reaction, plainly fails to qualify as a formal scientific name (nomen nudum), and that is not my opinion, but the sober conclusion of NASA and the vast expert international scientific community. As much as I would like to entertain this conversation, please note that Wikipedia is hardly a forum to advance fringe theories of life on Mars. Please feel free to cite/include scientific peer-reviewed papers. Thank you, Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

DDS

I just want to draw your attention to the images taken by the HiRISE camera of the MRO. They provide much better image quality of the phenomenon, including the ones some folks with a vivid imagination interpret as "trees" (which they clearly aren't).

http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/PSP/ORB_003400_003499/PSP_003432_1115/PSP_003432_1115_RGB.NOMAP.browse.jpg
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/PSP/ORB_003200_003299/PSP_003287_1115/PSP_003287_1115_RGB.NOMAP.browse.jpg
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/PSP/ORB_003400_003499/PSP_003443_0980/PSP_003443_0980_RGB.NOMAP.browse.jpg
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/PSP/ORB_002400_002499/PSP_002494_0980/PSP_002494_0980_RGB.NOMAP.browse.jpg

--141.44.196.178 (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

An artist's rendering?

Folks...why is there an image of an artist's rendering of a "living Mars" at the start of the article? That could be a rendering of any planet with an Earth-like atmosphere...pure conjecture having nothing to do with what Mars looks like now, nor with the search for evidence of life being carried out today. Even if it was confirmed that Mars once had a denser atmosphere than it does today, no scientist has ever stipulated that it was Earth-like. Can we delete this image and replace it with one of Mars as it actually looks? That image would be more appropriate on a science fiction entry. Rafajs77 (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that past life on Mars was -in part- dependent on existence of liquid water on its surface. Since there is evidence of large extinct bodies of water & water flow, I believe the rendering is useful in that context. I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Cheers. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

First Picture

The first picture says that it is "An artist's impression of what Mars' surface and atmosphere may have looked like in the past.", but in reality it is a picture of what Mars' surface may look like after terraforming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TerraformedMars.jpg Charwinger21 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  • And the difference is...? andy (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you want someone to change the caption, or does the world just need to know?
If it was the first one, fixed.
--30daysinAK (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Excessive imagess & duplication

Jimmars, the article deals with life on Mars, not with Viking images. I placed a link to the Viking mission and Water on Mars in the article for those wanting to read about it in more detail. I find the gallery excessive, non-esthetical and out of topic. You already placed your gallery in Exploration of Mars, Water on Mars and Viking program. A tetraplicate copy here is unrequired, in fact, rather than repeat the same entry in lots of articles you should link to the article instead. If there is duplicated entries then it will need to be changed in many articles or become out of date. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree. This is why we have urls - don't duplicate it, link it! andy (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought

just a question: who says that there can't be any organismes that don't need any human like organs? who says that life on mars should look like life on earth? isn't it possible that there is life on mars. but in an other form. maybe the organismes on mars don't need oxygen, but they live on the gas that is on the surface of mars. and maybe they are well protected against the temperatures because of some kind of evolving. this is what life does, isn't it? continiously evolving, so it can adapt to the environment. maybe this is what life on mars did. just a thought, which i thought to be shared whith all of you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.246.26 (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Astrobiologists got you covered. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following unreferenced claim:

Since Mars lost most of its magnetic field about 4 billion years ago, the Martian ionosphere is unable to stop the solar wind or radiation, and it interacts directly with exposed soil, making life, as we know it, impossible to exist.

This is incorrect according to [11]; the atmosphere is directly exposed to the solar wind (which has caused most of it to blow away), not the surface of the planet. -- Beland (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning. The NASA article you put forward states that Mars' atmosphere is exposed (and damaged) by solar wind, it does not state that the planet's surface is protected from it. Here are some references noting the high radiation on Mars' surface: [12], [13]. This one is very precise: After mapping cosmic radiation levels at various depths on Mars, researchers have concluded that any life within the first several yards of the planet's surface would be killed by lethal doses of cosmic radiation. [14]. However, radiation on the surface is dealt with at section "Cosmic radiation", which is reason enough to remove that passage from the water section. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If life is discovered on Mars than I think that it migh pose another obstacle for human colonists. The martian microbes might have the ability to cause new diseases in humans. If microbial life is discovered on Mars I think that it will be essential for scientists to learn as much as they can about it by sending probes to study the newly discovered species to determine if they are a possible health risk to humans. This way scientists might be able to develop a vaccine if they are a health risk.--Knowledgemania (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Title

Clearly the title of the article is misleading as it appears to assume something that there is clearly no conclusive evidence for. I understand that Life of Mars is the subject of fiction, but that should be the scope of articles such as "Mars in Fiction" or "Mars in Popular Culture" etc.

Also it is not clear whether it is in reference to indigenous life or introduced life ? Does it come under the umbrella of Colonization of Mars.

I'm not sure of the Wikipedia policy on this, as I note that there are many other hypothetical titles (ie Extraterrestrial life, Colonization of the Moon in my opinion should more specific be Future Colonization of the Moon) but I'd imagine that the more correct title would be "Life on Mars?", "Possibility of Extraterrestrial Life on Mars" or "Theoretical Mars Biology". My personal opinion is that titles like Life on Mars are reverse weasel words, they assume something is true until it is proven otherwise.

For example, the article Moon landing conspiracy theories is less conclusive than "Moon Landing Hoax", although the article Apollo hoax in popular culture, the subject of fiction, is justifiably more conclusive in its title.

Likewise Life on Titan is also misleading. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a number of WP pages named after something or someone whose existence is disputed. The page called Tachyon is one example – it is about hypothetical particles that go faster than light. Another notable example is the page called God... And what about the page Extrasolar moon, about artificial satellites of planets beyond the Solar System? As the article itself mentions, no extrasolar moon has yet been detected... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that "Life on Mars" is more a topic of astrobiology research than a claim. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Navarro-González

After checking the quoted scientific article, it seems that user 165.190.89.174 is correct. Please check the bottom of the referenced article:

This work was supported by National Autonomous University of Mexico Grant DGAPAIN101903 and National Council of Science and Technology of Mexico Grant 45810-F and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Astrobiology Science and Technology for Exploring Planets program.

Navarro-González is the 1st author and he works at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Furthermore, the paper was only "edited" by Leslie Orgel of The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, but the work if from Navarro at the UNAM. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Miller paper

http://ijass.org/PublishedPaper/year_abstract.asp?idx=132

This paper seems WP:RS and should be considered. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

MSL

The mars science lab is no longer a future mission, its a current one.Aperseghin (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done -BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Life_on_Mars/Archive_1&oldid=1110644327"