Mushrooms on Mars

The Great Zaganza said:
yeah, before looking for extraterrestrial life, it might be useful to agree on a definition of life.
Click to expand...
When it comes to viruses, are they alive, I can see this argument. But we had no trouble recognizing life around deep sea vents.

I don't think this calls for a special definition of what constitutes life. My point was that we should consider the circumstances and not dismiss an extraordinary claim without investigating potential non-earth like lifeforms.

If it loosely resembled mushrooms but on Earth mushrooms and other fungi live off of decaying organic matter.

Well, there is organic matter on Mars, so we should, at a minimum, consider that fungi might be able to use organic material that isn't from decaying lifeforms.


Again, I've not seen convincing photographic evidence. The images in the article need to be more fleshed out. I need to see the original NASA images for myself.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
yeah, before looking for extraterrestrial life, it might be useful to agree on a definition of life.
Click to expand...

I'll offer
"A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce. Or at least four out of five."
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
When it comes to viruses, are they alive, I can see this argument. But we had no trouble recognizing life around deep sea vents.
Click to expand...


Additionally, bacteria and bacterial spores can survive in conditions that are extremely hostile to life.

According to astrophysicist Steinn Sigurdsson "There are viable bacterial spores that have been found that are 40 million years old on Earth—and we know they're very hardened to radiation".
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14637109

Some bacteria were found living in the cold and dark in a lake buried a half-mile deep under the ice in Antarctica.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/...-deep-under-antarctic-ice-scientists-say.html

And in the Marianas Trench, the deepest place in Earth's oceans.
https://www.livescience.com/27954-microbes-mariana-trench.html

Expeditions of the International Ocean Discovery Program found microorganisms in 120 °C sediment that is 1.2 km below seafloor in the Nankai Trough subduction zone.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6521/1230

Some microorganisms have been found thriving inside rocks up to 580 m below the sea floor under 2,600 m of ocean off the coast of the northwestern United States.
https://www.livescience.com/27899-ocean-subsurface-ecosystem-found.html

A species of bacteria survived on the outside of the International Space Station for a full year, in an environment of microgravity, harsh ultraviolet radiation, temperatures near absolute zero and, of course, hard vacuum.
https://www.businessinsider.com/bac...of-space-station-for-a-year-2020-11?r=AU&IR=T
 
"Fungi can readily absorb and metabolize a variety of soluble carbohydrates, such as glucose, xylose, sucrose, and fructose. Fungi are also characteristically well equipped to use insoluble carbohydrates such as starches, cellulose, and hemicelluloses, as well as very complex hydrocarbons such as lignin. Many fungi can also use proteins as a source of carbon and nitrogen. To use insoluble carbohydrates and proteins, fungi must first digest these polymers extracellularly. Saprotrophic fungi obtain their food from dead organic material; parasitic fungi do so by feeding on living organisms (usually plants), thus causing disease." One of many such sources

Show me some available carbohydrate or protein on Mars and I'll be less dismissive. But those organic materials come from living organisms, so evidence of living organisms would do nicely.

Carl Sagan and the value of an open mind has been mentioned, but didn't he also say something about it not being so open that your brain falls out?
 
GlennB said:
"Fungi can readily absorb and metabolize a variety of soluble carbohydrates, such as glucose, xylose, sucrose, and fructose. Fungi are also characteristically well equipped to use insoluble carbohydrates such as starches, cellulose, and hemicelluloses, as well as very complex hydrocarbons such as lignin. Many fungi can also use proteins as a source of carbon and nitrogen. To use insoluble carbohydrates and proteins, fungi must first digest these polymers extracellularly. Saprotrophic fungi obtain their food from dead organic material; parasitic fungi do so by feeding on living organisms (usually plants), thus causing disease." One of many such sources

Show me some available carbohydrate or protein on Mars and I'll be less dismissive. But those organic materials come from living organisms, so evidence of living organisms would do nicely.

Carl Sagan and the value of an open mind has been mentioned, but didn't he also say something about it not being so open that your brain falls out?
Click to expand...

Look, I don't have an issue with your assessment this is unlikely to be fungi of any kind. I agree, its very unlikely, and I have said as much.

However, what I object to is your dismissive "nothing to see here" attitude, when there is a clearly an unexplained scientific mystery begging to be solved. As I said earlier, if everyone took that attitude to something new and unexplained, nothing would ever be discovered. We'd all still be living in caves or the plains of Africa.
 
sphenisc said:
I'll offer
"A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce. Or at least four out of five."
Click to expand...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/
"Most evolutionary biologists hold that viruses are not alive..."


Grow?
checkbox_checked.png


Metabolize?
checkbox_crossed.png


Respond to stimuli?
checkbox_checked.png


Adapt?
checkbox_checked.png


Reproduce?
checkbox_checked.png


That's four out of five
 
From the original article that spawned the whole kerfuffle:

"Those on top-sides were often collectively oriented, via their caps and stalks, in a similar upward-angled direction as is typical of photosynthesizing organisms. The detection of seasonal increases and replenishment of Martian atmospheric oxygen supports this latter interpretation and parallels seasonal photosynthetic activity and biologically-induced oxygen fluctuations on Earth."

Er, fungi don't photosynthesise. The author, Rhawn Gabriel Joseph, is a renowned crank.
 
smartcooky said:
Look, I don't have an issue with your assessment this is unlikely to be fungi of any kind. I agree, its very unlikely, and I have said as much.

However, what I object to is your dismissive "nothing to see here" attitude, when there is a clearly an unexplained scientific mystery begging to be solved. As I said earlier, if everyone took that attitude to something new and unexplained, nothing would ever be discovered. We'd all still be living in caves or the plains of Africa.
Click to expand...
I'm all on board with that all the way down to there is something to see here. But has this paper done anything to advance understanding? It looks like it's just another source of nonsense for the anti-science crowd to me. What are you seeing here?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
When it comes to viruses, are they alive,
Click to expand...

sphenisc said:
I'll offer
"A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce. Or at least four out of five."
Click to expand...

smartcooky said:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/
"Most evolutionary biologists hold that viruses are not alive..."


Grow? [qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/ygxdgwipczu9due/checkbox_checked.png?raw=1[/qimg]

Metabolize? [qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/nuv2jvnjz0loqvz/checkbox_crossed.png?raw=1[/qimg]

Respond to stimuli? [qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/ygxdgwipczu9due/checkbox_checked.png?raw=1[/qimg]

Adapt? [qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/ygxdgwipczu9due/checkbox_checked.png?raw=1[/qimg]

Reproduce? [qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/ygxdgwipczu9due/checkbox_checked.png?raw=1[/qimg]

That's four out of five
Click to expand...

There are two phases to a virus:

1.) A virus particle is not alive as it does not grow, reproduce, metabolize, consist of cells, respond to stimulus etc... none of them.

2.) However, when it enters a cell and takes control of the functions of the cell, then it can be said to be alive as it does all of those things.

 
angrysoba said:
There are two phases to a virus:

1.) A virus particle is not alive as it does not grow, reproduce, metabolize, consist of cells, respond to stimulus etc... none of them.

2.) However, when it enters a cell and takes control of the functions of the cell, then it can be said to be alive as it does all of those things.

Click to expand...

I hate to ask. But what about Prions? Living or not?
 
smartcooky said:
However, what I object to is your dismissive "nothing to see here" attitude, when there is a clearly an unexplained scientific mystery begging to be solved.
Click to expand...

There isn't one, even given the most cursory glance. In terms of the science involved it barely gets even a single step towards first base.
 
GlennB said:
There isn't one, even given the most cursory glance. In terms of the science involved it barely gets even a single step towards first base.
Click to expand...

Is that correct? That's a sincere question. I would say that the explanation (i.e. that these are mushrooms) of the observations doesn't get toward first base, but is there an alternative explanation?

Are these perfectly ordinary rocks doing perfectly ordinary things, and no one with knowledge thinks twice about them, or are there geologists and/or exogeologists scratching there heads wondering what's going on with the rocks? Are they at least interesting rocks, for people who are interested in that sort of thing?
 
Meadmaker said:
Is that correct? That's a sincere question. I would say that the explanation (i.e. that these are mushrooms) of the observations doesn't get toward first base, but is there an alternative explanation?
Click to expand...
An alternative explanation for what exactly?
 
Has anyone seen anything about how this nutcase got the other authors to put their names on this paper?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom