The K M Links Game - February 2025 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Life On Mars?
A group of academics say they have identified fossilised sponges, corals, worm eggs, algae and more on the surface of Mars, and say life there may even be thriving today.
“We have photos of fungi growing out of the ground, increasing in size, increasing in number, as based on sequential images,” said Dr Rudolph Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, speaking on behalf of the researchers.
Finding life somewhere other than Earth would have major implications for humanity, proving for the first time that we are not alone in the universe. And if life is present so close to home, it opens fascinating questions as to what life might be like further afield.
“Definitive proof would tell us we are not alone,” added Dr Schild. “We could assume that life has evolved on innumerable Earth-like planets.
“This then raises questions about the antiquity of life. There are planets and Solar Systems that are billions of years older than our own. What if human-like life evolved on those planets billions of years ago? The implications are staggering and humbling.”
https:/
Exciting stuff? I think so. What say you?
“We have photos of fungi growing out of the ground, increasing in size, increasing in number, as based on sequential images,” said Dr Rudolph Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, speaking on behalf of the researchers.
Finding life somewhere other than Earth would have major implications for humanity, proving for the first time that we are not alone in the universe. And if life is present so close to home, it opens fascinating questions as to what life might be like further afield.
“Definitive proof would tell us we are not alone,” added Dr Schild. “We could assume that life has evolved on innumerable Earth-like planets.
“This then raises questions about the antiquity of life. There are planets and Solar Systems that are billions of years older than our own. What if human-like life evolved on those planets billions of years ago? The implications are staggering and humbling.”
https:/
Exciting stuff? I think so. What say you?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Now you're meeting yourself coming back ... again. //
I'm absolutely not. Life on Mars may exit today (but it seems unlikely), and may have existed in the past (which is more plausible). This particular study, which is extremely suspicious for the many reasons I've stated (principally, that it's coming from a group with a documented history of making dubious claims about photographic "evidence" for Martian life), provides no evidence one way or another.
In what way, exactly, does this "meet myself coming back"?
I'm absolutely not. Life on Mars may exit today (but it seems unlikely), and may have existed in the past (which is more plausible). This particular study, which is extremely suspicious for the many reasons I've stated (principally, that it's coming from a group with a documented history of making dubious claims about photographic "evidence" for Martian life), provides no evidence one way or another.
In what way, exactly, does this "meet myself coming back"?
I’ve no doubt Clare is better informed than I am, zacs - I’ve never claimed otherwise - but after years of discussion between us I do find Clare routinely dismissive of anything that isn’t ‘proven’ or which fails to meet with the currently accepted scientific model - and that because of Claire’s background in science tends, I think, to stifle discussion - and worse still, in my opinion, curiosity. Where would science be without curiosity? Clare has conceded that life may have existed on Mars and it’s possible that it exists today so I’m at a loss to understand clare’s clear disdain for this man and his work.
‘ I do find Clare routinely dismissive of anything that isn’t ‘proven’ or which fails to meet with the currently accepted scientific model’
Eminently sensible.
‘Clare has conceded that life may have existed on Mars and it’s possible that it exists today so I’m at a loss to understand clare’s clear disdain for this man and his work’
They’re probably waiting for proof from a more robust source, like myself.
Eminently sensible.
‘Clare has conceded that life may have existed on Mars and it’s possible that it exists today so I’m at a loss to understand clare’s clear disdain for this man and his work’
They’re probably waiting for proof from a more robust source, like myself.
-- answer removed --
// Clare, you’ve pulled this man and his work to bits - and then you’ve said that life could have existed on Mars and possibly still could. That makes no sense to me. //
This particular work is hardly the only study about life on Mars, so, if it turns out to be mistaken, it still doesn't make a difference to the bigger picture. That ought to be clear enough.
// ... after years of discussion between us I do find Clare routinely dismissive of anything that isn’t ‘proven’ or which fails to meet with the currently accepted scientific model ... //
I think the problem here, on the other hand, is a certain kind of selection bias. It seems that often what piques your curiosity is, by accident or design, precisely that which isn't "mainstream". But there's more to it than that. Consider, for example, a statement made in the paper listed fifth on your source above:
"Fossils similar to Ediacaran fossils have been discovered on Mars [11, 20,21, 73]."
Those numbers at the end are citations. It bothers me that such a bold statement cites precisely four papers which are co-written by the authors. I can't find any other support for it at all, and rather a lot to suggest the opposite (see, e.g., some papers linked below). Granted, there are times when self-citations are unavoidable, but, as a rule, if the *only* source for such a bold claim is the person making it, then that claim should be taken with more than a pinch of salt. In particular if a claim is presented as being definitive (there's no doubt in the quote above), then it should really follow that somebody else, independently, agrees with you, and I just don't see that here.
So, anyway, one problem is that this paper is making assertions from the get-go that just don't look founded in established consensus. Indeed, more or less the entire introduction seems devoted to tracing a history of Life on Mars whose completeness seems to rival that on Earth -- this despite, as I again should mention, the fact that to date there's no consensus that life definitely existed on Mars at all.
Meanwhile, a recent article, written in part by a friend of a friend (see https:/
As an aside, I'm not in touch with him directly, but if you are interested I could chase him up about this and about the search for fossils on Mars in general.) By the same author, I also found this important warning paper:
https:/
It's interesting, and perhaps revealing, that the "Guide to Finding Fossils on Mars" linked to above isn't mentioned at all in, so far as I can find, any of the papers linked to by the Telegraph. This is again a problem: even if the intention of the papers were to refute the ideas of that paper (or, generally, *any* paper that is more sceptical about the existence of fossils on Mars), then it should be cited in order to criticise it: "some authors believe... however, as we shall show..." or some such formulation. But there's very little of that, at least as far as the narrative about life on Mars goes.
The impression I get is that these are scientists working in a bubble. There's little contact with, or acknowledgement of/from the wider scientific community. But collaboration is vital. It acts as a useful sanity check, for example, or makes it easier to find out what others are up to. There seems precious little of that here.
And, finally, at the heart of it all it's just a bunch of blurry photos that, if you squint, might just about vaguely resemble fossils on Earth. So, to link back to why I'm dismissive, it's not that it goes against the scientific consensus per se. It's that it just fails a bunch of standard quality control checks.
This particular work is hardly the only study about life on Mars, so, if it turns out to be mistaken, it still doesn't make a difference to the bigger picture. That ought to be clear enough.
// ... after years of discussion between us I do find Clare routinely dismissive of anything that isn’t ‘proven’ or which fails to meet with the currently accepted scientific model ... //
I think the problem here, on the other hand, is a certain kind of selection bias. It seems that often what piques your curiosity is, by accident or design, precisely that which isn't "mainstream". But there's more to it than that. Consider, for example, a statement made in the paper listed fifth on your source above:
"Fossils similar to Ediacaran fossils have been discovered on Mars [11, 20,21, 73]."
Those numbers at the end are citations. It bothers me that such a bold statement cites precisely four papers which are co-written by the authors. I can't find any other support for it at all, and rather a lot to suggest the opposite (see, e.g., some papers linked below). Granted, there are times when self-citations are unavoidable, but, as a rule, if the *only* source for such a bold claim is the person making it, then that claim should be taken with more than a pinch of salt. In particular if a claim is presented as being definitive (there's no doubt in the quote above), then it should really follow that somebody else, independently, agrees with you, and I just don't see that here.
So, anyway, one problem is that this paper is making assertions from the get-go that just don't look founded in established consensus. Indeed, more or less the entire introduction seems devoted to tracing a history of Life on Mars whose completeness seems to rival that on Earth -- this despite, as I again should mention, the fact that to date there's no consensus that life definitely existed on Mars at all.
Meanwhile, a recent article, written in part by a friend of a friend (see https:/
As an aside, I'm not in touch with him directly, but if you are interested I could chase him up about this and about the search for fossils on Mars in general.) By the same author, I also found this important warning paper:
https:/
It's interesting, and perhaps revealing, that the "Guide to Finding Fossils on Mars" linked to above isn't mentioned at all in, so far as I can find, any of the papers linked to by the Telegraph. This is again a problem: even if the intention of the papers were to refute the ideas of that paper (or, generally, *any* paper that is more sceptical about the existence of fossils on Mars), then it should be cited in order to criticise it: "some authors believe... however, as we shall show..." or some such formulation. But there's very little of that, at least as far as the narrative about life on Mars goes.
The impression I get is that these are scientists working in a bubble. There's little contact with, or acknowledgement of/from the wider scientific community. But collaboration is vital. It acts as a useful sanity check, for example, or makes it easier to find out what others are up to. There seems precious little of that here.
And, finally, at the heart of it all it's just a bunch of blurry photos that, if you squint, might just about vaguely resemble fossils on Earth. So, to link back to why I'm dismissive, it's not that it goes against the scientific consensus per se. It's that it just fails a bunch of standard quality control checks.
claire is right
I am surprised that cack handed science is portrayed as the Real Thing but hey this is AB !
He Rudolph Schild is a guest and speaker on Caroline Cory’s film Gods Among Us, where he gives his scientific perspective on the subject of extraterrestrial beings and telepathy.
um yeah right ( righto! as TTT often says)
no stephen hawking then
I am surprised that cack handed science is portrayed as the Real Thing but hey this is AB !
He Rudolph Schild is a guest and speaker on Caroline Cory’s film Gods Among Us, where he gives his scientific perspective on the subject of extraterrestrial beings and telepathy.
um yeah right ( righto! as TTT often says)
no stephen hawking then
Latest Posts
Body & Soul0 min ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
News18 mins ago
News22 mins ago
