Allen Hills Meteorite ALH 84001 IS BACK IN THE NEWS

[jakethesnake]

It now looks as if the Martian Meteorite ALH 84001 does indeed contain the fossils of life.

The new data are expected to be addressed publicly within days by NASA Headquarters in Washington.

A team led by Johnson Space Center has submitted a 46 page detailed paper for peer review and this document is part of the November issue of the respected journal Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, the journal of the Geochemical and Meteoritic Society.

Martian meteorite surrenders new secrets of possible life

BY CRAIG COVAULT
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: November 24, 2009

Compelling new data that chemical and fossil evidence of ancient microbial life on Mars was carried to Earth in a Martian meteorite is being elevated to a higher plane by the same NASA team which made the initial discovery 13 years ago.

The new work centers on so-called magnetic bacteria that on Earth, and apparently Mars as well, leave distinctively-shaped remnants in the rock. In addition the features test with a high chemical purity more like a biological feature than geological.

For years after the Martian meteorite data were first presented, opponents of the life theory argued that the same shaped features and associated chemical purity was just as likely caused by a thermal/shock event that blasted the material off Mars in the first place.

But research led by Kathie Thomas-Keprta of the original Allen Hills team has now proven the thermal theory is invalid, strengthening the team's argument that the "magnetic bacteria" features found in the meteorite were indeed formed by biologic activity on Mars and not some non-biologic thermal event.

 

[Solifugae]

formed by biologic activity on Mars and not some non-biologic thermal event.

What about being formed by bacteria on Earth? Is the "contamination" debate over?

 

[jakethesnake]

formed by biologic activity on Mars and not some non-biologic thermal event.

What about being formed by bacteria on Earth? Is the "contamination" debate over?

I don’t think this debate is even close to being over, but I do look forward to reading the 46 page report that was submitted for peer review. I also think that the scale now leans heavily on the side of life.

 

[Solifugae]

Is there anyway to confirm that these signs of life were Martian? Does their age tell us they were not formed on Earth?

 

[marsbug]

Here ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...d=121753&md5=7f4ea04877f8be57758b4a9f444e8b1b ) and here ( http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090038980_2009039912.pdf )are a couple of the papers they are getting published. The second is more of a round up of what they're evidence is to date, the first is dealing with why they think the magnetite nanocrystals couldn't have been formed by thermal decomposition processes. The second deals with why they think the features being discussed were formed on Mars.

 

[MrUniverse]

magnetosomes in AH 84001

I've always read that Mars has no magnetic field, however the apparent fossils found in the Allen Hills meteorite have distinct magnetite features.
What purpose would these serve to organisms on Mars?
Could there be other uses for these organelles, such as for finding each other to mate?
Has Mars ever had a magnetic field? If so, do we know how long ago?

 

[origin]

Re: magnetosomes in AH 84001

I've always read that Mars has no magnetic field, however the apparent fossils found in the Allen Hills meteorite have distinct magnetite features.
What purpose would these serve to organisms on Mars?
Could there be other uses for these organelles, such as for finding each other to mate?

Your jumping to a lot of conclusions about mating techniques of without proof that there are even any orginisms.

Has Mars ever had a magnetic field? If so, do we know how long ago?

It probably did since it probably had a molten core at one time.

Do you hang out with MrGravity or is it more like Charles Atlas?

 

[MrUniverse]

Re: magnetosomes in AH 84001

Do you hang out with MrGravity or is it more like Charles Atlas?

I'm huge, and I suggest you stop mouthing off before I get 'roid rage...j/k

 

[BoJangles2]

It seems they have proved a single reason against why it’s not bacteria, but they haven’t shown a proof for why it is fossilized bacteria. I.e. there could potentially be millions of ways that may make that sort of shape naturally.

From and undereducated point of view, how could such a delicate system be fossilized anyway, I think statically it would be much more reasonable to believe its not fossilized bacteria.

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: magnetosomes in AH 84001

Do you hang out with MrGravity or is it more like Charles Atlas?

I'm huge, and I suggest you stop mouthing off before I get 'roid rage...j/k

With only 5 posts I would suggest you take your ROID RAGE to WWF...

 

[xflare]

Why isnt EVERYONE talking about this? :shock: Hasn't even appeared on any science news websites.

 

[MeteorWayne]

4 reasons I think.

First, we've been down this road before with this subject.

Second, the papers are in technical language in technical journals.

Third, it's the Thanxsgiving holiday weekend in the US

4th, the case is not ironclad. It's more of a continuation of the scientific investigation and debate that has been going on for years. That's how science is supposed to work...with methodical investigation and analysis, not headlines

 

[silylene]

I smell the whiff of bad science here.

This story is like cold fusion. It should die away, so we could put this example of bad science behind us. But there is a tiny community of diehard scientists who just keep at it, generating just enough ambiguous data that they can keep their group of believers alive with just enough encouragement to continue. Oh yeah, and just like the cold fusion dudes, every time they generate some ambiguous data, there is a ring of followers who invariably get it called to the press's attention.

 

[robnissen]

I'm afraid I'm less cynical than you Silylene. I agree with MW, this is the way science progresses. I have never seen compelling evidence that the rock DOES NOT contain evidence of life. Now I agree that the burden is on those that claim the rock DOES contain evidence of life, and they have not yet met their burden. But there is certainly evidence that suggests the rock MAY contain evidence of life. To claim that it is bad science to continue to investigate this issue until it is decided one way or another, I think is flatly wrong. I, for one, am glad that research is continuing, and I have no idea why you appear to think it is bad science to continue this research.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Thanx robnissen, cynical is the word I've been searching for to reply to silylene.

I'm with you, the case has been presented and out there for 14 years or so. It's never been completely refuted like cold fusion; it's just a subject of continuing research. Those who propose that it could represent ancient life on Mars have continued their analysis and presented their case again for examination by the scientific community.

I look forward to reading their results, as well of those who will undoubtedly refute it.

That is indeed how science works.

I love the process

MW

 

[jakethesnake]

I find this whole process very, very interesting... the advancements in technology driving science, and the science driving technology. This is most definitely science at it's best. Cold fusion is a bad analogy... ALH84001 is a work in progress from something visually tangable and Cold fusion is something that so far can't be duplicated and or seen... more or less a pipe dream.

 

[99980]

martian meteorites

I see there is a new scientific report due out soon (from Nasa?) on the meteorite ALH84001 which is reckoned to have broken off Mars by the impact of an asteroid. I understand scientists believe it fell to earth 13,000 years ago, landing in antarctica after floating thru space for about 16 mill years. And that it preserves evidence of water on Mars. However I also read that we reckon oceans disappeared from Mars 2 bill years ago. So if this meteorite did break off that planet 16 mill years ago I wonder how the scientific evidence that it contains evidence of water existing there when water had disappeared many millions of years previously? It will be interesting to read the NASA report.

 

[99980]

thanks MW..I guess this is the thread you directed me to (from ask the astronomer martian meteorites), thanks..however I cannot find the post I made here earlier today, did you move it to here?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Oopsie . SOrry, I forgot. Will do now.

 

[robnissen]

Re: martian meteorites

So if this meteorite did break off that planet 16 mill years ago I wonder how the scientific evidence that it contains evidence of water existing there when water had disappeared many millions of years previously?

The answer to your question is that while this rock broke off around 16 M ago, prior to that it had sat on Mars for perhaps billions of years. Once it was immersed in water, that changed the characteristics of the rock to show that immersion, even though it was then dry for eons. In the same way that Spirit and Mars are finding evidence of water on Mars now (the evidence, not the water) in rocks that have now been dry billions of years.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Hmmm, I'll have to read some actual papers. Here's the headline and link and excerpts from spcaeflightnow:

Three Martian meteorites triple evidence for Mars life


http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/09marslife/

"The team that found evidence of Martian life in a meteorite that landed in Antarctica believes that during 2010, by using advanced instrumentation on now three Martian meteorites, it will be able to definitively prove whether such features are truly fossils of alien life on the Red Planet....


"We do not yet believe that we have rigorously proven there is [or was ] life on Mars." says David S. McKay, chief of astrobiology at the NASA Johnson Space Center.

"But we do believe that we are very, very close to proving there is or has been life there," McKay tells Spaceflight Now

The team ... believes it has since tripled its fossil-like data by finding more "biomorphs" (suspected Martian fossils) inside two additional Martian meteorites, as well as more evidence at other spots in the Allen Hills meteorite itself"

---------------

Unfortunately, nowhere does the sfn article state where the assertions will be published in a peer reviewed journal...it seems to be a purely speculative article based on conversations with Craig Covault.

 

[brellis]

Mars had a strong magnetic field, but it was destroyed 4.1B yrs ago by the asteroid that created the Utopia crater.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... eroid.html

IIRC, the theory is that the fossil, or whatever it is they're looking at in this rock, would be from 4.1BY+ ago, so it could contain evidence of mag field.

 

[BreezyJ]

Mars had a strong magnetic field, but it was destroyed 4.1B yrs ago by the asteroid that created the Utopia crater.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... eroid.html

IIRC, the theory is that the fossil, or whatever it is they're looking at in this rock, would be from 4.1BY+ ago, so it could contain evidence of mag field.

Sounds like a solid theory, but I would think there could be theories a little less far fetched.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Could not Mars have once had a magnetosphere, for a couple of billion years, billions of years ago? When its core was still molten and its inner-core solid but still magnetically active in tandem with the molten outer core?

 

[paulscottanderson]

A couple more articles today from Popular Science and Scientific American:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... -come-year
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ar-2010-01

I am very interested in what the results are later this year...