Jump to content

from earth to mars


agachak

Recommended Posts

  • 4 months later...

There is a buzzing theory out there, that life actually began on Mars and traveled to Earth, by way of a meteorite. It's not that far (distance wise) and if you read up on it, it's not that far fetched. ''Mounting evidence'' points to the oxidized mineral form of the element molybdenum, thought to be a catalyst that helped organic molecules develop into the first living structures. (on mars)

 

So, when we talk about 'earth to mars'...maybe we should look at in the other way around. :D

Edited by Deidre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This hypothesis is very old and purely speculation. Is not actually a theory yet.

The following is a quote from the last link I posted.

Among the many, many things he would have to prove, and this is just for starters:

1). "Oxidized molybdenum could not have existed on Earth in early Earth history." While it's widely accepted that the early Earth had low oxygen levels, it does not follow that oxidized molybdenum could not have existed. There are a couple of ways I can think of without even trying.

2). "Oxidized molybdenum was essential to the formation of life." This is unproven.

3). "Tar is antithetical to life." Well, tar exists now and so does life. Some organisms even consume tar. At any rate it seems overstated and rash to claim that the formation of tarlike compounds would prohibit the formation of life.

4). "Mars was hospitable to the formation of life at that time while Earth was not." Really? How? They were far more alike than dissimilar. My argument is weak but so is Professor Benner's, and he's the one who has to prove his hypothesis.

5). "O2 was essential to the creation of oxidized molybdenum, essential to life." This becomes a paradox. There is widespread agreement that high levels of O2 is indicative of life, not a precondition for it. If that were true, and oxidized molybdenum were essential to life starting, then life could not start to produce the O2 necessary for it's creation.

6). "Transfer of life from Mars to Earth happened at the time observed in the archeological record." This will be a tough one to nail down. It's plausible but that's all.

7). "Reverse seeding of life, from Earth to Mars, did not happen." This may be easier to support. Earth's gravity well is greater than Mars. However ruling it out will be extremely difficult.

8). "The archeological record shows common morphology, and ideally common biology (including genetics) between Earth and Mars." This will have to wait on archeological data from Mars.

I understand that my paraphrases of Professor Benner's position may not correctly reflect his true beliefs. If so, I await correction and will withdraw them as appropriate.

http://www.space.com/22577-earth-life-from-mars-theory.html?cmpid=51463011319564

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2890202/

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4145815&cid=44712033

Edited by victorqedu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.