Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mars Rover Curiosity Finds Ancient Lakebed

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the how's-the-fishing? dept.

Mars 74

astroengine writes "The site where NASA's Mars rover Curiosity landed last year contains at least one lake that would have been perfectly suited for colonies of simple, rock-eating microbes found in caves and hydrothermal vents on Earth. Analysis of mudstones in an area known as Yellowknife Bay, located inside the rover's Gale Crater landing site, show that fresh water pooled on the surface for tens of thousands — or even hundreds of thousands — of years. 'The results show that the lake was definitely a habitable environment,' Curiosity lead scientist John Grotzinger, with the California Institute of Technology, told Discovery News. The finding was announced at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Microbes require hundreds of Myrs to evolve (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642031)

Tens of thousands of years just ain't gonna cut it. Water may be necessary for life, but it is not sufficient. Transient lakes are not a good environment - anything that gets started gets nipped in the bud when the lake dries up. You need a STABLE environment for hundreds of millions of years, and probably oceans, not lakes. Find some banded iron formations and we'll talk.

Re:Microbes require hundreds of Myrs to evolve (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642123)

banded iron formations
 
I always suspected Iron Maiden was from Mars.

[VORSICHT!] MoD PaReNt Up! [iCiudado!] (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45643749)

Mod parent up. Ne1 else thawt ^this^ wuz phunnie!?
 
Mod parent up!!!

Re:[VORSICHT!] MoD PaReNt Up! [iCiudado!] (1)

Zaldarr (2469168) | about a year ago | (#45646209)

You're worse than the other guy.

Re:Microbes require hundreds of Myrs to evolve (4, Interesting)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about a year ago | (#45642211)

I suppose the assumption is that, if there was one habitable environment that persisted for tens or hundreds of kiloyears, there were probably others. I also suppose that life would be more likely to maintain its foothold in an environment where lakes tended to persist for many years, as opposed to appearing and disappearing with the seasons.

Help! Mod parent DOWN! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642633)

jeffb (2.718), you are a scummy douchebag for calling something "kiloyears." Way to sound R-e-T-a-R-d-E-d.

Re:Help! Mod parent DOWN! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45643123)

Posting a response like this, you sound even retardeder

Re:Microbes require hundreds of Myrs to evolve (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642591)

You need a STABLE environment for hundreds of millions of years, and probably oceans, not lakes.

Not according to Hollywood: Red Planet (2000) [amazon.com]

Re:Microbes require hundreds of Myrs to evolve (5, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#45642599)

Tens of thousands of years just ain't gonna cut it. Water may be necessary for life, but it is not sufficient.

Tell that to the iron respirating microbes of Blood Falls [wikipedia.org] that were in their transient little pool breathing oxygen normally until one sudden winter the surface froze and never receded. All they "needed" was a pool of water and some chemically active elements, like iron and sulphur -- both present on Mars.

Transient lakes are not a good environment - anything that gets started gets nipped in the bud when the lake dries up.

...And then blows around and winds up in another ideal environment, eh? Or just wait for the water to return. Are you purposefully unaware that we're reviving ancient bacteria that were trapped in salt formations by just adding some nutrient rich water?

You need a STABLE environment for hundreds of millions of years, and probably oceans, not lakes. Find some banded iron formations and we'll talk.

You're in luck! We found a formation right next to Mars! You're living on it! And we even have rocks from Mars on Earth -- ejecta from impacts -- and estimate that tons of Earth has been spread about the solar system, possibly seeding live just about anywhere that could support it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just as sceptical as the next person. I'll rightly dismiss any claim without evidence, but I refuse to have a closed mind to possibilities for the very same reason: Every time we've declared places on Earth devoid of life, we've found it thriving there. Used to think life couldn't exist at the bottom of the ocean, wrong. Used to think no life could survive subduction into the crust, wrong. We've had to re-define what life "needs" to survive so many times it's more truthful to say, "we're not really sure where life can't survive." So, if you make an unevidenced claim like, "You need a STABLE environment for hundreds of millions of years" -- I'll give you the same sceptical middle finger: Fucking Prove it, or you're full of bullshit.

Re:Microbes require hundreds of Myrs to evolve (1)

neoritter (3021561) | about a year ago | (#45643485)

I'll give the benefit of the doubt to who you're replying to that by "life" they meant complex or advanced life. A lot of those places we thought life couldn't exist, the life that does exist there is single-celled, or extremely rudimentary.

LIfe existing != life arising (1)

mangu (126918) | about a year ago | (#45648919)

There are several different niches on earth where life exists in very hostile conditions. But that's not relevant to the question of life on Mars. The point is, did extremophile life arise spontaneously in such places, or did it migrate from somewhere else and gradually adapted to extreme conditions?

As far as we know, life may have a very low probability of appearing. We still don't know the exact combination of factors that led to the formation of the first living organisms, no one has ever been able to duplicate it in a laboratory.

The earth has several unique characteristics, one of them being its presence right in the middle of the habitable zone. However, the right temperature is not enough. The existence of a magnetic field is important, and plate tectonics may also be a fundamental factor, in its recycling of carbonaceous rocks that keeps the carbon dioxide in balance.

The presence of the moon could be fundamental to both the magnetic field and plate tectonics, due to the churning of the earth through tidal action. Also, ocean tides may have been a contributor to the creation of life, perhaps the concentration of soluble minerals in tidal pools were a factor. So, it could be that life will only evolve on a planet with a large moon.

Re:LIfe existing != life arising (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#45652381)

The presence of the moon could be fundamental to both the magnetic field and plate tectonics, due to the churning of the earth through tidal action. Also, ocean tides may have been a contributor to the creation of life, perhaps the concentration of soluble minerals in tidal pools were a factor. So, it could be that life will only evolve on a planet with a large moon.

That was a proposition in one of Asimov's last Foundation books (Foundation and Earth? I haven't read them in a while) and Asimov was a biochemist.

However, there is another way. [slashdot.org] An earth-sized satellite of a jovian moon would get stirred well enough. And then again, there may be life nothing like we know it [slashdot.org] . Or unlikely as it seems, we may be the only life in the universe. In Nobots [mcgrewbooks.com] , life is rare and found in few galaxies.

Fresh water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642637)

Summary says "show that fresh water pooled on the surface for tens of thousands — or even hundreds of thousands — of years.". For there to be fresh water, there had to be rain (or snow). For that to happen, there were likely oceans.

(Actually we're reasonably sure that most of the Vastitas Borealis was ocean during Mars' early wet stage several billion years ago.)

Incredible That This is Happening (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642033)

I find it incredible that we're getting all these results today, that it isn't some scifi or something. JPL, NASA etc are really doing a great job.

I mean, it's pretty much been determined that Mars used to be habitable. We may be only a short time from someone finding real microbe fossils there.

At the same time, exoplanet research is exploding. Someone just found oxygen in the atmosphere of some exoplanet. In the near future, we may be able to detect signatures of life on exoplanets, at least spectroscopically.

Disclaimer: My niece works at JPL. I'm therefore somewhat biased in favour of them, and may not be completely objective. However, I believe my interest in these matters to be true. I was fucked in the ass by a goat yesterday.

Re:Incredible That This is Happening (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year ago | (#45642311)

I find it incredible that we're getting all these results today,.

Why? Remember that congress is in the process of putting together the continued funding of the Federal Government as I type this. Time is running out on the temporary agreements currently in place and the horse trading is kicking up into high gear.

Such announcements are at least partially timed by the political reality of having to obtain funding. NASA and JPL are just getting started sooner than the rest I guess.

Re:Incredible That This is Happening (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45647901)

I was fucked in the ass by a goat yesterday.

WTF?

rock eating microbes (2, Funny)

schlachter (862210) | about a year ago | (#45642039)

We welcome our rock eating microbe overlords...

Re:rock eating microbes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642375)

Did it find any tall, green-skinned, four-armed men flying around in ships powered by rays of light?

Re:rock eating microbes (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#45642653)

...by sending a NSA --er, NASA drone to spy on them.

Re:rock eating microbes (1)

fisted (2295862) | about a year ago | (#45643141)

You for one, are doing it wrong.

Re:rock eating microbes (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#45643743)

We welcome our rock eating microbe overlords...

It's all fine and cute, until they grow up to be Horta's.

Re:rock eating microbes (1)

tragedy (27079) | about a year ago | (#45647561)

What have you got against Hortas? They're perfectly nice as long as you aren't butchering their children to make paperweights.

First Hoax (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642053)

Lies! All complete and utter fabrications faked from a soundstage! ISON is coming!

Ancient? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642073)

"When I was your age, I made love to your grandmother by that lake! Eh? WHAT. No, WHAT? There ain't no more water in that lake? That's the first I heard of that."
 
This was the response from my geriatric grandfather as I just read him the story from the tablet. Sigh.
 
Now get off my lawn... ... ...

Hmmmm..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642175)

Call me when the headline reads: "Mars Rover Curiosity Finds Fossilised Remains of Ancient Lifeforms"

Re:Hmmmm..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642247)

Wait, let me retract that. Call me when the headline reads: "Mars rover Curiosity Shot By Martian Who Was Mumbling Something Sounding Like 'f*cking drones'."

Re:Hmmmm..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642581)

Git off mah planet! *BLAM*

Mars Rover Curiosity Finds Ancient Lakebed... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642317)

...still searching for new source of NASA funding.

Re:Mars Rover Curiosity Finds Ancient Lakebed... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#45643837)

...searching for new source of NASA funding

They can just claim they found dark life in dark rocks. Solid evidence not required. Works for astrophysics. (Although you risk getting elusive dark funding).

Re:Mars Rover Curiosity Finds Ancient Lakebed... (1)

snakeplissken (559127) | about a year ago | (#45644735)

They can just claim they found dark life in dark rocks. Solid evidence not required. Works for astrophysics

the obvious guaranteed way to get funding is to claim they've found signs of al qaeda!

Re:Mars Rover Curiosity Finds Ancient Lakebed... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#45646609)

or oil

Re:Mars Rover Curiosity Finds Ancient Lakebed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45646765)

...still searching for new source of NASA funding.

Have they considered painting a giant image of Kim Kardashian, nude on the side of the next rocket? Or perhaps... the Mars Explorer, brought to you by COKE! Or... this colony funded by McDonalds! McDonalds, the first interplanetary restaurant chain!

Shit, to late! (1)

Teun (17872) | about a year ago | (#45642419)

I really hate it when I have had something on my 'to visit' list and then find out I've waited too long...

genesis of life (1, Insightful)

kipsate (314423) | about a year ago | (#45642451)

On earth, it took 1 billion years before life started to appear. Just let that amount of time sink in for a second. A billion years. During this astoundingly long period, the conditions for life to appear have been orders of magnitudes better than on Mars. Lower radiation due to an atmosphere, warmer but not too warm, less toxic chemicals on the surface, and covered mostly with oceans.

Now although there might have existed water on Mars, and even oceans, the reality is that the chance that life had been able to start on Mars before it dried up and turned into a reddish rock is zero.

Re:genesis of life (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642551)

Mars had an atmosphere before it's core cooled and it lost it's magnetic field, so it would have been significantly more hospitable way back in the day. It wasn't always a "dried up" "reddish rock".

Re:genesis of life (4, Informative)

Str1der (524776) | about a year ago | (#45642717)

Why down vote this? The core cooling is one of the leading theories on how Mars lost it's magnetic field. Without a magnetic field, radiation and energized particles from the sun and deep space were able to blast most of the atmosphere away.

Re:genesis of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642923)

Because people are assholes and don't care about the content of posts. It's anon so they auto down vote.

Re:genesis of life (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about a year ago | (#45648761)

Very true. People these days down vote anything that goes against their beliefs.

That's not how it happened! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45647725)

Why down vote this? The core cooling is one of the leading theories on how Mars lost it's magnetic field. Without a magnetic field, radiation and energized particles from the sun and deep space were able to blast most of the atmosphere away.

The Martian atmosphere is gone because John Carter was spending too much time screwing Dejah Thoris and didn't remember that he knew how to get into the building housing the equipment maintaining Mars' atmosphere until too late!

Re:genesis of life (1)

kipsate (314423) | about a year ago | (#45643239)

Mars had an atmosphere
Yes, and it was totally gone within 500 million years after Mars was formed, and had likely become prohibitively thin for any life to form way before it was gone. Any life that existed must have evolved during the first couple of hundred million years. But on earth, it took 1 billion years. And earth is bigger, closer to the sun, has more water, a less toxic surface than Mars.

Re:genesis of life (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#45643491)

There was no real chance for life on Earth before the Iron Catastrophe, which melted the crust and likely was the first time the crust was anything like a smooth layer. Life may have formed as "quickly" as a hundred million years after the crust cooled enough to have liquid water pooling. [wikipedia.org]

Mars is less certain, but I'd assume it went through the same cycle, and had at least a couple hundred million years with stable liquid water before its core solidified and stopped spinning.

Re:genesis of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45644891)

You are one simple motherfucker. Life can't "evolve" from nothing. Either life exists or it doesn't. Once it exists it can evolve. The existence of life happens by chance elements, it doesn't "evolve" out of these chances. I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about. The sad thing is that you've probably convinced others that you do and you're spreading lies, misconceptions and disinformation.
 
YOU'RE A BIG FUCKING ASSHOLE!

Re:genesis of life (1)

weilawei (897823) | about a year ago | (#45650171)

I don't think you quite get what evolution is. Typically, scientists use the word evolution to describe the combined results of many probabilistic factors."Random chance" mutation is one of those. Ever heard of abiogenesis [wikipedia.org] ? If we speak in terms of time "steps" (years, seconds, whatever), then each new time step is the evolution of the previous time step. f(x+1) = f(f(x)). Evolution within already living structures is merely a specific case of the general.

Re:genesis of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45645223)

Mars had an atmosphere
Yes, and it was totally gone within 500 million years after Mars was formed, and had likely become prohibitively thin for any life to form way before it was gone. Any life that existed must have evolved during the first couple of hundred million years. But on earth, it took 1 billion years. And earth is bigger, closer to the sun, has more water, a less toxic surface than Mars.

Considering the trace of a lake. Wouldn't the lake stay way after the atmosphere is gone? The lake would also protect from radiation.
Life could very well have formed in the lake long after the atmosphere was thinned out.

Re:genesis of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45646753)

Not sure...if troll...FINE I'll bite.

A liquid CANNOT exist without pressure (e.g., from an atmosphere). If you had a liquid in a near-vacuum, it would simply boil - due to the lack of pressure.

Re:genesis of life (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about a year ago | (#45650409)

We don't know when life started on earth. It may well have started before the late heavy bombardment. There simply aren't any rocks surviving from that time to check.

Re:genesis of life (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642775)

Latest evidence is that life on Earth started a lot faster than that, maybe even less than half a billion.

Mars cooled faster than Earth (in part because of the incident which led to Earth's Moon), and early Mars had a magnetic field and relatively thick atmosphere. It took over a billion (maybe 1.5, maybe as long as 2) for Mars to dry up.

It's entirely possible that life started on Mars before it did on Earth. It's even possible (unlikely, but not impossible) that life started on Mars first then transferred to Earth via meteorite.

Re:genesis of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45644439)

or spacecraft

Re:genesis of life (1)

JustNiz (692889) | about a year ago | (#45642799)

I think I'm right in saying that the environment on earth when life started to appear would actually be lethal to most current-day life including humans, i.e. too hot/unbreathable/toxic and too much radioactivity.

Re:genesis of life (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#45642845)

the reality is that the chance that life had been able to start on Mars before it dried up and turned into a reddish rock is zero.

Got a source to cite for that or are you reading from the book of Armchair Science for Slashdot?

Re:genesis of life (0)

kipsate (314423) | about a year ago | (#45642979)

I'm sorry, but this is just common sense. Life does not spontaneously appear if you stir in a bowl of water. The chances of a self-copying molecule (because that's all the first "life" can have been) to spontaneously appear is so small, that it took a billion years on earth to happen. Mars, being an environment orders of magnitude less favorable, there's just zero chance.

Re:genesis of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45643213)

I'm sorry, but this is just common sense.
 
If anything about the foundations of life on any planet was "just common sense" it wouldn't have taken thousands of years of learning to come up with it. We still don't have that answer for a planet that we know has life today and we have unlimited access to.
 
  Life does not spontaneously appear if you stir in a bowl of water. The chances of a self-copying molecule (because that's all the first "life" can have been) to spontaneously appear is so small, that it took a billion years on earth to happen.
 
Just because something takes a million tries for circumstances to produce a "hit" for one system doesn't mean the same is true for another. Anyone who's honest will tell you that.
 
  Mars, being an environment orders of magnitude less favorable, there's just zero chance.
 
Odd, experts in the field don't think so. The fact that billions of dollars are being spent on answering this very question shows that you have no idea of what you're talking about. And since you're putting a metric on an element of the question (orders of magnitude less), please explain how you came up with this figure and please explain your insight into why life develops in any environment...
 
This is going to be rich, I'm sure.

Re:genesis of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45643677)

The chances of a self-copying molecule (because that's all the first "life" can have been) to spontaneously appear is so small, that it took a billion years on earth to happen. Mars, being an environment orders of magnitude less favorable, there's just zero chance.

PROBABILITIES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!

Re:genesis of life (1)

weilawei (897823) | about a year ago | (#45650259)

The whole "spontaneous" thing is ancient thinking. Today, we understand that the Universe consists of a complex set of reactions (which may yet be more complex, or our model overcomplicated). From Wiki [wikipedia.org] :

The now-famous "Miller–Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gases—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.[26] This provided direct experimental support for the second point of the "soup" theory, and it is around the remaining two points of the theory that much of the debate now centers. In the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.

Sounds a lot like mixing a "bowl of water" (calling it a bowl of water is oversimplifying too much for my taste) to me. Let's not start in on your blatant abuse of probability: orders of magnitude less does not equal zero. Try out Zeno's Paradox sometimes.

Re:genesis of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45650287)

s/paradox/paradoxes/, specifically, the one about Achilles and the Tortoise. You might also try reading GEB sometime.

Re:genesis of life (4, Interesting)

laura20 (21566) | about a year ago | (#45642887)

Not really true, at least in terms of conditions for life being better than on Mars. The Late Heavy Bombardment probably ended about 3.8 Ma ago, and even the more conservative estimates have life leaving identifiable marks by 3.6 Ma, and there are arguments for rocks even earlier than that -- and we don't have many of those. Life seems to have appeared on Earth not long after the crust cooled enough for such to survive.

Re:genesis of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45649103)

"Life seems to have appeared on Earth not long after the crust cooled enough for such to survive."
Which says one of two things: Life can can evolve from inert matter in a couple of hundred million years (in which case it should be just about everywhere in the universe) or life did not evolve on Earth or even our solar system. Given how complex even " simple" bacteria are, the latter seems more likely.

Re:genesis of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45643011)

Zero seems a bit extreme. Water must have existed for a billion years on Mars in sub-surface aquifers, and it may even exist today. Whether life developed is still an open question, but a zero. Drilling and a sample return mission will probably be needed to find evidence of it. The good news is that for the amount of money Obama squandered just in Massachusetts on the Stimulus package (5 billion) would be almost enough for a sample return mission, the bad new is that he squandered it and now is broke and wants to gut planetary missions.

Re:genesis of life (1)

savuporo (658486) | about a year ago | (#45644561)

A hundred sample return missions could come back empty and it would still not tell you if life existed on Mars or no. Same for human sorties.
This is not an argument against spaceflight , but i think the chase to find evidence of life on Mars - if it ever existed - at this stage of our spaceflight capabilities is slightly futile and a little bit overprioritized. The best you can do is characterize the environment of the past, which is what Curiosity did here, but actually hitting a fossil with any one off mission has a very very low probability, IMO.

Re:genesis of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45643177)

THIS IS CETI ALPHA FIVE

Re:genesis of life (1)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about a year ago | (#45645949)

...the conditions for life to appear have been orders of magnitudes better than on Mars. Lower radiation due to an atmosphere, warmer but not too warm, less toxic chemicals on the surface, and covered mostly with oceans.

For Earth-Life, yes. Now for hypothetical extraterrestrial life on the other hand...

Re:genesis of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45646415)

Top scientists say you're a fucking retard [medium.com] .

Re:genesis of life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45646793)

Not exactly. The oldest fossils are ~3.5 billion, so, yeah, that's about a billion years in. But there is isotopic evidence for life being present even older, back to ~3.8 billion (although it is a bit controversial), and before that it gets dicey mainly because you don't have many rocks that old on Earth, and what rocks you do have (as old as ~4 billion) are so metamorphosed and remelted that they can't really preserve evidence of life even if it was around. There are individual zircon grains in metamorphosed rocks that suggest the first 100 million years of Earth history had a surface cool enough to have water on it, so life might have been possible, but there isn't enough to tell. We may be looking at a preservation issue rather than a true "it took X time for life to show up" situation. How long did it take? No *longer* than 700 million years or so (4.5 billion-3.8 billion), or maybe 1 billion if you reject that isotopic evidence. But it could have been a lot shorter and we wouldn't know about it easily.

The Hadean is not an easy time to figure out.

Call me when it finds an actual lake. (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | about a year ago | (#45642543)

All these reports of finding topographic depressions is depressing

/buh dum tish

Re:Call me when it finds an actual lake. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45644377)

Buh. Dum.

FTFY.

Evidence (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#45642729)

Beer cans, trolling jigs and outboard motors lost overboard.

Re:Evidence (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#45643465)

They don't call it the Red(neck) Planet for nuthin'

Mars Rover Curiosity Finds Ancient Lakebed (1)

danielpauldavis (1142767) | about a year ago | (#45642879)

Only if one can obtain intricately-organized molecules of amino acids, ALL laevo-rotary, to make up a system that can then communicate with concurrently-existing enzymes that are then able to reproduce that molecule. In other words, the "life" you're looking for needs so much more than mere "water" that to say "life" might've been possible is a good way to say, "I wanna seem ridiculous."

Re:Mars Rover Curiosity Finds Ancient Lakebed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45646245)

You've already posted this comment and you've already been corrected [slashdot.org] here at least twice...and you claim to be an educator.

One year on Mars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45642957)

I double-dare you to watch the 'one year on Mars' video and not get a geek-erection. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt20kTRV-_M

Perhaps the new web hasn't caught up to them... (1)

HellYeahAutomaton (815542) | about a year ago | (#45643067)

Fish, or it didn't happen!

Am the only one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45643433)

...that reads this and wonders: What happened to all the water on Mars? ...the answers my imagination provides are quite scary. Planet-raping aliens came and sucked it all up in a few years. I hope they don't return.

Funny buttsex (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45644263)

Honey boob oo thats what imean2say

Every planet (1)

die standing (2626663) | about a year ago | (#45647531)

is alive, every rock around and in every lakebed or former lakebed is alive; guess it just depends on how we see things - the rocks, the trees, the birds, the bees, the yous, the mees - are all alive - they/we are expressions of life - the life that has been breathed into the all-everything from the one LIFE; and the expression of life is not life.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?