Banner
    4 Billion Years Ago, Mars Had Fresh Water
    By News Staff | January 26th 2014 10:01 AM | 4 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    10 years of Opportunity and Spirit on Mars have given us some interesting insights, like that the oldest minerals show that around four billion years ago Mars had liquid water so fresh it could have supported life.


    NASA loves to invoke 'may have implications for life on other planets', it gets the public excited - no bucks, no Buck Rogers so selling some sizzle is important - and thus a focus for NASA's decade of research on Mars surface was whether the planet may ever have been able to be habitable. 

    "While Mars is too cold now to have the liquid water needed for life, we've had evidence for past water activity on the planet from satellite images of valleys and analysis of rocks by the Rovers," said co-author Dr. Paulo de Souza of CSIRO. "But the water that once shaped those landscapes and minerals was as acidic as vinegar. "Our latest research has found not only the earliest episode of water activity documented yet by the Opportunity Rover, but that the geochemistry of the 4 billion year old rocks indicates extensive deposits of past water that's among the freshest, most life-sustaining found so far anywhere on Mars.

    "If there was ever life on Mars, then this would have been the mud for it to live in."

    de Souza has worked with NASA since the Mars Exploration Rover Program began, having collaborated with NASA's research teams for many years. "Opportunity's Mars mission was expected to last just months but she's still going strong 10 years on with no signs of stopping. She's traveled 38km instead of the few hundred meters planned.

    "Along the way, Oppy's collected invaluable information about Mars' surface with her high tech toolkit of rock scrapers, chemical sensors, and spectral analyzers." 


    Published in Science.

    Comments

    ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH

    In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt and rocks containing microbes into outer space which not only could have eventually reached Mars but also ended up traveling in orbit through space that we now know as meteors, comets, and asteroids. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions the high possibility of Earth life on Mars. "We think there's about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars", says scientist and evolutionist Kenneth Nealson. "You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth" [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12].

    HAVING THE RIGHT CONDITIONS AND RAW MATERIALS FOR LIFE doesn't mean that life can originate by chance.

    Proteins can't come into existence unless there's life first! Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that individual amino acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by chance. But, it's not enough just to have amino acids. The various amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning protein molecules. If they're not in the right sequence the protein molecules won't work. It has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules.

    The probability of just an average size protein molecule arising by chance is 10 to the 65th power. Mathematicians have said any event in the universe with odds of 10 to 50th power or greater is impossible! The late great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated that the odds of even the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power! How large is this? Consider that the total number of atoms in our universe is 10 to the 23rd power.

    Also, what many don't realize is that Miller had a laboratory apparatus that shielded and protected the individual amino acids the moment they were formed, otherwise the amino acids would have quickly disintegrated and been destroyed in the mix of random energy and forces involved in Miller's experiment.

    There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already existing sequence of molecules found in our genetic code.

    Of course, once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and
    biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

    A partially evolved cell would quickly disintegrate under the effects of random forces of the environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years for chance to make it complete and living! In fact, it couldn't have even
    reached the partially evolved state.

    Please read my popular Internet articles listed below:

    ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH,
    SCIENCE AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE,
    NATURAL LIMITS OF EVOLUTION,
    HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM,
    WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS (2nd Edition),
    NO HALF-EVOLVED DINOSAURS,
    HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
    DOES GOD PARTICLE EXPLAIN UNIVERSE'S ORIGIN?

    Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

    Sincerely,
    Babu G. Ranganathan*
    (B.A. theology/biology)

    Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

    * I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East" for my writings on religion and science, and I have given successful lectures (with question and answer time afterwards) defending creation from science before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities.

    I can't even read a scientific article without someone trying to brainwash people into accepting there is some invisible man in the sky that created everything. I am not a biologist (I am an engineer) so I am no expert but I find some of what you wrote to be bias in nature.

    "HAVING THE RIGHT CONDITIONS AND RAW MATERIALS FOR LIFE doesn't mean that life can originate by chance."........Doesn't mean anything one way or the other.

    "Also, what many don't realize is that Miller had a laboratory apparatus that shielded and protected the individual amino acids the moment they were formed, otherwise the amino acids would have quickly disintegrated and been destroyed in the mix of random energy and forces involved in Miller's experiment."......... I will have to read up on this to verify what you stated but I have a question. If this was true then how come amino acid were found on a comet. Wouldn't this has been destroyed by the same process as you stated.,

    "! The late great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated that the odds of even the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power!"........Just because some scientist claim this does, not make it true. There is no evidence to support or disprove this claim. Hoyle also claim the universal was steady state which is widely accepted as wrong. Furthermore, he also proposed a new theory of gravity which was also proven wrong. So just because a person make such claim, does not mean it is true. Evidence will be needed to proof that he is correct.

    " It has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules."........Just because it has yet to be shown does not mean it is false. I also have a problem with your use of the word chance. Once a cell start self-replicating then it is not just chance. It is chance guided by natural selection. Furthermore, when you state the simplest cell is made up of million of proteins, you are assuming cells as we know it in the present. When life first started, the life form were more simple and gradually evolved into the cells of present days. So the first life forms were probably not made of millions of protein but rather much less.

    I am very skeptic of the rest of your claims too. But I will have to research the topic a little bit more because I am not a biologist. But I will and if you are intentionally trying to mislead people and preying on people's ignorant on the subject, well that is just a shameful way to conduct yourself.

    PS. - After doing a quick google search, I found this exact comment posted all over the place. Someone is just copy and pasting this nonsense.
    "

    robertinventor
    Yes, the smallest modern cell is far too complex to arise by chance, in one go. So there must have been smaller and simpler precursors, that's all.
    Good overview in Wikipedia, see its page on Abiogenesis.
    Nobody knows, if life is so rare that it probably only happened here once, and maybe only on a few planets in the galaxy - or if it is so easy to get started that just about every planet that could have life has it, and probably started several times simultaneously in our solar system - or somewhere in between.

    Hard to say much with one data point. But will find out as we do biological explorations of Mars and other places in our solar system, and can also look at signs for life in the chemical make up of exoplanet atmospheres once we get to the point where we can analyse the atmospheres of planets with close to Earth like conditions.

    Science is amazing how they come up with this information.

    Chris
    Owner CEL Financial Services
    Tax Return Preparer
    Registered bonded California CTEC Tax Preparer
    Please visit my website for all your Income Tax Piru-Santa Paula-Fillmore needs.