Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Life on Mars. There are two possibilities. It will use the same genetic code as life on earth, or it won't.

What are the implications for believers in evolution, and for believers in divine creation, in either case?
**************
Don't see how it goes either way.
If I were a biotek company exec, I'd want the life on Mars question addressed. It's most probable that major breakthroughs in life sciences and understanding will occur following analysis of possible ET life chemistry. Big bucks to be made. Even if Mars & Earth life has a common origin because of impact xfers, much will be learned analyzing life in an alternate ecosystem.

-philw

Posted by phil at June 2, 2002 01:11 PM

Phil's right. Either one could almost certainly be explained within the existing framework of evolution theory.

The same genetic code could, as Phil says, be explained by impact transfers -- although that would open the question of where the code originated if not on either Earth or Mars. That would lead to a new avenue of inquiry but evolution theory would still be viable.

Different genetic codes would increase the likelihood that life evolved locally on the two planets, but wouldn't necessarily rule out the impact transfer mechanism simply because two different planets could receive genetic material from two different sources.

Posted by Kevin McGehee at June 2, 2002 02:33 PM

I wasn't implying that either wasn't explainable by either. Both are explainable by both. My question was: what would the inferences be in both cases?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 2, 2002 02:39 PM

Good question Rand (on many levels.)

1) Does it have an impact on the validity of either?
2) Does it have an impact on the belief in either?
3) If it does have an impact on belief, what might that impact be?

Starting with the simpler case where the martian genetic material is related to terran material.

For the first question I think the answer is it would not because of the contamination issue already cited.

For the second question I would expect it to add more fuel to the evolutionists fire.

The impact might be the hastening of the prophesized demise of religion at the hands of the secular world (where the harlot is laid desolate.)

If the genetic material is not similar I believe the answers would be the same (with less emphasis on the first and more on the next two.)

Now let me take a second crack at it.

Is there any inherent reason that in a random chaotic system all life would be based on the same 20 left handed amino acids?

If there is, yet on Mars we find something different, then that would strongly suggest that chance could produce life. ...or God "hid the bones again" which I strongly disagree with.

If there is no inherent reason for a choice of these 20 over others, then without regard for whatever we find on Mars, that would strongly suggest a master artist was involved (because as was pointed out by another poster, more successful forms do not seem to wipe out all of less successful forms... or at least we have examples where they didn't.)

Not a rigorous analysis by any means, just my two cents.

Posted by ken anthony at June 2, 2002 03:17 PM

btw, getting back to space (which is much more interesting to me than evolution) you mentioned that Europa was a better candidate than Mars for the search for life. The implication being you don't get why Mars is such a good place to go.

Forgive me if I mischaracterize you here, it was just the impression I got. At the time, I was thinking to myself (how can he say that?) and well... I'm still wondering.

My buddy in the next office thinks I'm crazy even for suggesting we send men to Mars. Of course, he thinks going to the Moon was a bad idea too. He's non-religious, but I've heard similar comments from other's that cite that the Earth was given to the son's of man and shall be inherited by them... so we've got no right to any of this other wonderful real estate. Seems wacky to me!

Isn't Mars the next logical baby step in our expansion into all of space?

Posted by ken anthony at June 2, 2002 03:38 PM

Hmmm, well, I don't think any finding on Mars would have an appreciable impact on the literally-seven-days Creation people.

As a professing Christian I would have little trouble fitting the observed facts into the latitude for interpretation of a Genesis story that no possible author was in place to observe except God Himself and therefore must either be literally true or allegorical (or whatever the appropriate word is). And since Genesis itself says the sun wasn't created first off, how long were those first couple of days...? But I digress.

The notion that there will ever be a "demise" of religion assumes that mankind will someday become uncurious about those things that cannot be observed empirically and thus cannot be described directly -- like the first moments of the universe's existence. Science, as we know it today, is bound within the laws of physics as they apply today, but I don't think any scientists are claiming those same laws applied before the birth of the universe.

Posted by Kevin McGehee at June 2, 2002 03:53 PM

Until last week's discovery, I believe that Europa was considered by most planetary scientists to be the most promising site for life in the solar system. I don't know if the Martian ice discovery has changed that consensus.

But Mars is easier to get to (much closer to the earth, and much closer to the sun) and has a nasty radiation environment, being in orbit around Jupiter, so there are other reasons why it's not the top candidate, at least for a Mars mission.

As to whether Mars is the "next logical step," (a phrase I hate), it depends entirely on what your goals (and other premises) are.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 2, 2002 04:02 PM

Then you must really hate '...logical *baby* step' ;-)

My (unstated - what? you don't read minds?) premise is that putting men on Mars would be the fastest way to reach the goal of self sustaining space operations.

The Moon is closer but farther away in terms of being self sustaining (didn't Apollo suggest that?)

The asteroids may be economically more lucrative (another definition of self sustaining) but industrializing seems farther off.

Since we are (very likely) capable of living off the land on Mars, doesn't that make it the most economical (and therefore sustainable) destination?

Of course there is still the issue of cost to orbit (which I think Pournelle defines as half way to anywhere?) which suggests that the more often you go the more incentive there is to reduce costs. I can see some arguing that the Moon being closer would present more opportunities. But would a farside telescope or any other project compel us now? I don't think the time is right. I think Mars could get the momentum and I'd support Marsport with my tax dollars.

Also, many seem to assume only one launch per window. If boosters get cheap enough other nations (Russia, China and others --- India perhaps if it's not glowing soon) may sponsor parallel projects.

Posted by at June 2, 2002 05:17 PM

I think its potentially greatest impact would be on the "where is everybody?" debate, with an identity of the genetic code strengthening the case for our uniqueness, and a different code merely deepening the puzzle by raising the probability of life elsewhere.

Posted by Dave Trowbridge at June 2, 2002 06:38 PM

"My (unstated - what? you don't read minds?)"

I do, but not reliably, or so I've been told.

"...premise is that putting men on Mars would be the fastest way to reach the goal of self sustaining space operations."

Self sustaining in what sense? That they require zero inputs from earth? That's a long way off, no matter what local resources are available. That they generate more value than they consume?

That can (probably) be done with orbital space tourism.

Mars can only drive demand for launch services if there is sufficient demand to go to Mars. It remains to be seen whether Mars can generate that level of demand.

My bias, in terms of resource utilization, is the asteroids. I have trouble seeing why, once we've escaped a deep gravity well, we'd want to descend into another.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 2, 2002 07:02 PM

Rand asks:

"Suppose we do find life on Mars. There are two possibilities. It will use the same genetic code as life on earth, or it won't.

What are the implications for believers in evolution, and for believers in divine creation, in either case?"

Oddly enough, John Adams reflected upon a related question in some 1756 diary entries. Adams was fond of tweaking Calvinist noses, as the entry for April 25, 1756 shows:

"Astronomers tell us with good reason, that not only all the planets and satellites in our solar system, but all the unnumbered worlds that revolve around the fixed stars are inhabited, as well as this globe of earth.

If this is the case, all mankind are no more in comparison of the whole rational creation of God, than a point to the orbit of Saturn. Perhaps all these different ranks of rational beings have in greater or less degree committed moral wickedness. If so, I ask a Calvinist whether he will subscribe to this alternative, 'Either God Almighty must assume the respective shapes of all these different species and suffer the penalties of their crimes in their stead, or else all these beings must be consigned to everlasting perdition?'"

I think that's a worthwhile question to ask of those who would base scientific theories upon Christian theology.

Posted by at June 2, 2002 08:20 PM

Up next on Sci-Fi:

Founding father John Adams' lost Twilight Zone script.

Posted by Ken Barnes at June 3, 2002 04:19 AM

We have to be careful how we discuss the implications of water on Mars or the enviros will try to have it designated a protected wetland.

Posted by Eric Pobirs at June 3, 2002 04:38 AM

Is there any inherent reason that in a random chaotic system all life would be based on the same 20 left handed amino acids?
*********************************************

Well, that's one of the cool things about a situation like this. It has the potential to support some existing beliefs about biology or seriously change everything. Even someone at risk of having his life's work overturned cannot help be excited at the possibilities.

If evey place we discover life, however simple, uses the same chemistry as what we're familiar with it may indicate there are no viable alternative for the environments in the sample. Which would say a lot about "whwere the hell is everybody" question.

If we do find an alternative l;ife chemistry it would offer a treasure trove of new knowledge applicable far beyond just biology. Self-assembly and aelf-replication are just starting to reach the stage of practical applications. Adding to the bag of trick we've observed in nature would be invaluable.

The water hugely ups the ante for at least a robotic presence on Mars. We need to send more. Some of them can work on gathering raw materials to support an eventual human presence when we've come up with a decent technology base for making the trip.

Posted by Eric Pobirs at June 3, 2002 04:53 AM

Self sustaining in what sense? That they require zero inputs from earth? That's a long way off...
*********************************

Perhaps I should have said "somewhat" self sustaining. Having a ready supply of oxygen and hydrogen gives you a big leg up. As Zubrin says (paraphrasing) "if colonists found concrete on the Moon they'd mine it for the water." ...and the atmospheric radiation protection isn't anything to disregard either.

One problem with Apollo is that we just went to visit. I think that same problem could exist with asteroids. Forgive me for saying, but I don't think efficiency is the short term goal. Waiting for it is a losing proposition.

The problem is flags and footprints; that is not self-sustaining. I'm not discounting the potential for a new gold rush (2049's anyone?) but the fact of a gravity well encourages longer term thinking.

Actually, I think some enterprising company will park an asteroid into Earth orbit this next century. But I think focusing on Mars will be the fastest way to getting everywhere.

I could be wrong (it's happened once or twice before.)

Posted by ken anthony at June 3, 2002 06:46 AM

...although I'll never be able to afford to visit an orbital Hilton... I think the dam is about to burst on this issue. Apparently the demand (and more importantly the bucks) really exist. If they get the price under $100k the flood will be upon us. Is there any real reason why space operations have to be so much more expensive to operate than airline operations (and sure, some companies will go bankrupt, but so what?)

In any case, I don't think this affects whether we go to Mars now or not.

Posted by ken anthony at June 3, 2002 07:01 AM

More expensive? Yes. So much more expensive? Absolutely not. A hundred thousand per ticket is easily achievable with present technology.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 3, 2002 10:43 AM

"Is there any inherent reason that in a random chaotic system all life would be based on the same 20 left handed amino acids?"
We don't know now. We have suggestive (but not conclusive) evidence that it may be the case (some pre-biotic organics are found in space, and are considered to have come from there to Earth, and therefore presumably to Mars).

If Martian life is discovered, and its biochemistry is within the range of Earthly archaeobacteria, it would seem to me that one of three things is implied:

1)That Earth was "contaminated" from Mars, or vice versa, or both were from a common source (panspermia)

2)That there's some constraint on biochemistry (at least in water-containing planetary environments) that causes all life to look related

3)That some form of creationism is correct

Possibilities #1 and #2 can be investigated. Possibility #3, it seems to me, could only be considered in the context of "Well, we've spent a millennium fruitlessly investigating the other possibilities..."

Posted by John "Akatsukami" Braue at June 3, 2002 12:19 PM

Either way can be used by both sides of the debate.

If they have common genetic roots, the creationist can say that God made them the same way in each place and the evolutionist can say that they evolved from a common source.

If they are different, the creationist will say that God made them different and the evolutionist will say that they evolved indipendently and (happy happy) life must be very common in the cosmos.

Either way, it doesn't interfer with a Biblical story if non-sentient life is found on Mars or elsewhere. "In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis goes into a lot of details on the earth and bupkis on the heavens. Finding sentient life will throw a monkey wrench into Christian theology but not some simple microbes.

Posted by Mark Byron at June 3, 2002 01:51 PM

>Finding sentient life will throw a monkey wrench
>into Christian theology but not some simple
>microbes.

Not if it's a strain of Vogons who became preachers. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Posted by Quinbus Flestrin at June 3, 2002 07:23 PM

Post a comment