Fossil Discovery Indicates Life on Mars is Possible

[Guest]

There is new evidence that life on Mars is, theoretically, possible.

Fossil Discovery Indicates Life on Mars is Possible : Read more

 

[JOSHSKORN]

I don't quite understand why this is on Toms but it's definitely a cool story. Interesting that life can exist without oxygen. Maybe it'll change scientists' definition of what exactly a "habitable world" is for other forms of life.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]I don't quite understand why this is on Toms but it's definitely a cool story. Interesting that life can exist without oxygen. Maybe it'll change scientists' definition of what exactly a "habitable world" is for other forms of life.[/citation]

Scientists already knew that. In the mexican golf they've discovered lifeforms that aren't based on oxygen near some vulcanic something that emits immense amounts of heat. And that was some 10 years ago.

 

[monkeymonk]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]Scientists already knew that. In the mexican golf they've discovered lifeforms that aren't based on oxygen near some vulcanic something that emits immense amounts of heat. And that was some 10 years ago.[/citation]
Pretty sure that was more about surviving without energy from the sun, not oxygen. I assume you are talking about underwater volcanoes
.

 

[technogiant]

What on earth is this story about?....It is long been known that life on earth evolved without the presence of oxygen.

In fact atmospheric oxygen only appeared as a bi product of life when I believe it was the "cyanobacter" bacteria started producing oxygen as a bi product of photosynthesis.

At this point many species became extinct because at this stage atmospheric oxygen was infact toxic to many forms of life on earth.

So please tell me what is new in this "News"

 

[technogiant]

[citation][nom]leeashton[/nom]actually the volcanoes also produced amongst Co2, Oxygen also, hhard to beleive, this is also (volcanoes) how the ozone layer came into being[/citation]

Not disputed, but none the less early life on earth was not based on atmospheric oxygen and while volcanoes may have also been a source of it, it was only a minor constituent, it was life, initially in the form of photosynthetic cyanobacter that raised the atmospheric oxygen levels to current levels.

 

[aaron88_7]

[citation][nom]technogiant[/nom]So please tell me what is new in this "News"[/citation]
Nobody is forcing you to read every little article Tom's puts out. If reading about scientific discoveries infuriates you so much then why not just skip these articles?

Tom's clearly isn't the originator of this article anyway, so any complaints should be taken with the original source so those who wrote the original can ignore your moronic comments appropriately.

 

[technogiant]

[citation][nom]aaron88_7[/nom]Nobody is forcing you to read every little article Tom's puts out. If reading about scientific discoveries infuriates you so much then why not just skip these articles? Tom's clearly isn't the originator of this article anyway, so any complaints should be taken with the original source so those who wrote the original can ignore your moronic comments appropriately.[/citation]

I'm not taking issue with "Toms" or the originator.....just passing comment.

I also have no issue with reading about scientific discovery even if on a tech website.....but that was kind of my point...this is not even scientific discovery....it has been know about for years.

I'm quite selective about the articles I read already and don't have to be informed about my freedom of choice by the likes of you.....and in case you didn't realize you have the same freedom of choice over the comments that you read.....my comment was nothing but factual the only moronic comment I see is yours.

 

[aaron88_7]

You were bitching about Tom's posting an article, now your bitching about the content of the article. You're not a scientist, much less an expert on geology. I doubt you even read the original sourced article.

 

[technogiant]

[citation][nom]aaron88_7[/nom]You were bitching about Tom's posting an article, now your bitching about the content of the article. You're not a scientist, much less an expert on geology. I doubt you even read the original sourced article.[/citation]

"Bitching"?....I reserve the right to pass comment on either positive or negative on any article, that is what the forums are for, YOU do not have to read the forums if you take offense at the comments of others.

For you info I am a scientist if having a degree in Biochemistry classifies me as such.

The only one to use your rather immature terminology "bitching" is you.

 

[aaron88_7]

Clearly you aren't an English major, "For your info"

As for being a scientist; what papers have you written? What types of research have you conducted? Where did you get your degree? If you were a real scientist you wouldn't be so quick to blast an article on a scientific discovery when you haven't even read the full research paper.

If you want to add something constructive to the discussion go ahead, nobody is stopping you from doing so, but so far you're just complaining because you think you know more than the researchers that made this discovery - a discovery that, while you haven't even read their research, you don't even believe is valid.

That is not how real scientists work buddy, papers are written and peers offer criticism, but this is all based on research and real science, not just shouting from a bullhorn proclaiming one knows more simply because they think they are special. You are no scientist, so stop pretending like you are one.

 

[technogiant]

[citation][nom]aaron88_7[/nom]Clearly you aren't an English major, "For your info"As for being a scientist; what papers have you written? What types of research have you conducted? Where did you get your degree? If you were a real scientist you wouldn't be so quick to blast an article on a scientific discovery when you haven't even read the full research paper.If you want to add something constructive to the discussion go ahead, nobody is stopping you from doing so, but so far you're just complaining because you think you know more than the researchers that made this discovery - a discovery that, while you haven't even read their research, you don't even believe is valid. That is not how real scientists work buddy, papers are written and peers offer criticism, but this is all based on research and real science, not just shouting from a bullhorn proclaiming one knows more simply because they think they are special. You are no scientist, so stop pretending like you are one.[/citation]

Considering you have made on comment at all on the content of the article then your last post is laughable.

Do you have any comment to make about this article in this "comments" section?

Please feel free to do so as I have.

On the other hand some people are capable of nothing more than trolling.

I don't care whether you think I classify as a scientist or not, the fact is I have a scientific qualification, the fact is that everything I've said is factually correct.....If you can dispute those things rather than just launching personal attacks then please do so.

 

[aaron88_7]

You really don't need to quote every post I write, I know who you are responding to. But anyway, your first post was "What on earth is this story about?" Now I don't know how much more obvious the answer to this question could be, so it perplexes me as to where you obtained your credentials because you are clearly missing the point that this research isn't just about how life formed on Earth, but how life could have formed on other planets, Mars in particularly.

This isn't rocket science, it's just basic reading comprehension. I don't know why you are getting so upset over something you seem to imply isn't an interesting or relevant topic. I enjoy reading these articles and any thoughtful comments others may have to add to the discussion. What I am not interested in, however, is someone complaining about anything and everything in a pathetic attempt to gain attention. In the way that you insist on continuing this retarded pissing match it appears you are more interested in a lame argument over nothing than talking about anything slightly insightful.

 

[mister g]

If it gets out of hand though a moderator closes the entire comments thread.

 

[technogiant]

@aaron...and still your reply is totally devoid of anything that refutes the factual correctness of what I have said....lol...I will leave it there...it is pointless you..... obviously have nothing of significance only personal attacks.

 

[reggieray]

Thats where we came from all those years ago, our ancestors left Mars for Earth before the asteroid hit. They used that giant vacuum cleaner from the Space Balls movie to transfer all the air to Earth.

 

[belardo]

Toms not here... anymore.

 

[godnodog]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom] In the mexican golf they've discovered lifeforms that aren't based on oxygen [/citation]

Small correction, they´ve discovered lifeforms that don´t require oxygen, I think this is what you mean, because life on Earth is based on carbon, not oxygen, although Nasa recently announced another element based life form on Earth if I´m not mistaken arsenic. Here´s the link:

http/science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/02dec_monolake/

 

[godnodog]

aaron88_7 , I think technogiant, probably, was refering to this being old news, although I think this is not the website for this type of info, but I still welcome this info, there are always people who don´t know about it.

 

[nebun]

who cares about life of mars....such a waste