two mistakes

John Gentile yjgent at home.com
Thu Feb 15 22:23:14 EST 2001


No you can't make that leap to categorically state that the surface features
seen WERE CAUSED by water. The NASA statements of the pictures stated that
it appeared LIKE a water erosion BUT could have been caused by other forces.
Until we get there and look at the site and take measurements and samples
all we have is a picture and some theories. Better data will back up the
best theory.

-- 
John Gentile                                    Rhode Island Apple Group
yjgent at home.com                                      President
 "I never make mistakes, I only have unexpected learning opportunities"

> From: "Albano Neira Navarro" <anena at eresmas.com>
> Organization: Internet Look Communications - http://www.look.ca
> Newsgroups: bionet.microbiology
> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:12:49 GMT
> Subject: two mistakes
> 
> 
> John Gentile escribió en mensaje ...
>> It's important to remember that the scientific principle is that a theory
>> proposed needs experimental data to back it up.
> 
> NO COMMENT: please, don't try to learn me which are the science fundaments.
> And, unfortunatelly for us, maybe our job is not true science so...
> 
> Right now we have no direct
>> observations on the planet. We've had 2 scientific platform landings, but
>> neither were equipped to look for microbes.
> 
> yes, some probes have been done on planet surfaces looking for life
> activity, but, surfaces IS NOT the place to look in 'cause Mars and the most
> of the planets has not atmosfear enough to stop nocive radiations from the
> sun
> 
> All the evidence so far is
>> in-direct. We're not even sure that the "riverbeds" actually had water in
>> them at any time.
> 
> At this time, no body doubts that some geological erosion on mars surface
> were caused for an hidrological activity. You should take a look to some
> graphick documents.
> 
> As we get closer to the actual hands on phase of Mars
>> exploration we will get better and better data.
>> 
>> --
>> John Gentile                                    Rhode Island Apple Group
>> yjgent at home.com                                      President
>> "I never make mistakes, I only have unexpected learning opportunities"
>> 
>>> From: "Albano Neira Navarro" <anena at eresmas.com>
>>> Organization: Internet Look Communications - http://www.look.ca
>>> Newsgroups: bionet.microbiology
>>> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:28:03 GMT
>>> Subject: Re: That wasn't the question
>>> 
>>> Simply philosophy has nothing in this kind of questions; maybe
>>> 'speculations' The only aspect of philosophy which is interesting here (I
>>> think) is the deductive pathway (maybe in this time it's not a philosophy
>>> charateristic but science)
>>> So, we should think: it's sure water flow in Mars (no doubt); it's
> extremely
>>> posible that, if there was water, there was life; if in Mars was life on
> its
>>> surface, the most posible kind of life was a mic life (don't you think?);
> if
>>> time ago some bacteries was swimming in martians seas, maybe, in martian
>>> water rests, are still doing it; as Mars has tectonic activity (only a
>>> little, it's true), and, on surface temperature is so low to have liquid
>>> water, maybe (and I say 'maybe') some place underground, near an active
>>> zone, exist rests of those old rivers and seas (that's not a crazy idea,
> I
>>> think)
>>> Then, I hope we are ok that if there's water, there're a lot of
>>> possibilities that we could found some kind of life, and the most
> possible
>>> is mic life.
>>> 
>>> And HERE is where we go on with our speculations, so, we should forgive
>>> philosophy and try to use our mic and geol knowledge to try to find a
> place
>>> on Mars cortex to look for that eventual life.
>>> 
>>> I hope with this post was clear what I try to find in this group: some
>>> ideas, some ways of think, but with a scientific base, not to say 'maybe
>>> somewhere out there is life', 'cause nobody doubts it (I think) I think
>>> that, if appropiated conditions are in a planet, life MUST to be there,
> and,
>>> the most important must to be water presence, at least for ways of life
> like
>>> we know, and there are not satisfactory models for ways of life based on
>>> different supports, so... yes, maybe in Titan or Io is life in their
> liquid
>>> ch4 seas, but what kind of life? We know a life based on water, and
>>> biologists are limited by this only know: we can only study 'one life':
>>> Earth's life.
>>> 
>>> Yes, no more boring. Thanks for your post, Judy. I'm a post degree
>>> biology student and I'm interested in exobiology, so it's needle to pass
> for
>>> 
>>> planetary geology, extremofilus, evolution, etc, etc...
>>> 
>>> Nice to hear from you.
>>> 
>>> * Albano *
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 






More information about the Microbio mailing list