On 13/08/2011 18:29, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article5f6469a8-4e8a-40cf-bee2-
,
says...

BTW, is it expert opinion to assume carbonates are proof of life?


No, but it is considered evidence of water.

The next generation of probes that look for signs of life will mostly
use mass spectrometry to monitor the isotope ratios of the media and
surrounding gasses. Life tends to preferentially grab the lighter
isotopes because they are more mobile inside a diffusion limited cell
whereas inorganic reactions mostly occur on the outer exposed surface
and are almost instant.

Such methods would easily distinguish a peroxide or superoxide of iron
on Mars (which is highly likely) from real life. When Viking was sent it
just wasn't possible to miniturise the right gear and make it robust and
low powered all at the same time. Now it is so we will have to wait and
see what they find in the dark lines. It would be great fun if life was
found wherever liquid water exists...

(And one in the eye for Young Earth Creationists)

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Aug 14, 9:17*am, Martin Brown
wrote:

It would be great fun if life was found wherever liquid water exists...

(And one in the eye for Young Earth Creationists)

Why?

With the reduction / oxidation of all sorts of chemicals in a deep
earth matrix of water and silicates, the need for time is no longer a
requirement for accidental miracles is it?

Personally I can't even be arsed with the idea that uranium et al is
limited to the good old days. If enough heat and pressure can be
generated in the upper atmosphere to turn nitrogen into carbon, there
wouldn't be all that much difficulty in turning lead and / or whatever
into uranium and the rest, would there?

It is much cheaper to believe the obvious than spend any time -or
anything less costly, on imagining alternatives. Not that I wish to
put you off your hobby.