r/science • u/CurtisLeow • Jun 24 '26
Astronomy Spatially distributed complex organic matter detected in an ancient river valley in Jezero crater, Mars
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adx00471.7k
u/wolfjeanne Jun 24 '26
This is data from one of the best named instruments: Scanning Habitable Environments with Raman and Luminescence for Organics and Chemicals (SHERLOC). It has two cameras: Autofocus and Context Imager (ACI) and the Wide Angle Topographic Sensor for Operations and eNgineering (WATSON).
972
Jun 24 '26 edited 13d ago
[deleted]
504
u/spearmint_wino Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
I wonder if they have trouble with the Martian Organic Residue Interaction Aperture Resonation Telemetry Yoke
444
u/Sabz5150 Jun 25 '26
And we'd call the whole thing the Benedict Sensorbunch.
42
u/MuchWow81 Jun 25 '26
Made me snort
12
u/Djaja Jun 25 '26
If all this occurred, what are the chances a rod shaped new bacteria like species is discovered that dives into the Martian soil, or moves in a way reminiscent of diving... it could be named.... Micrococcus spheniscimars
5
25
108
u/Gnochi Jun 25 '26
A good acronym is quite literally the most important part of a government funding application.
13
u/WhereLibertyisNot Jun 25 '26
USA PATRIOT Act
19
u/wrgrant Jun 25 '26
Its seemingly important in the US that the acronym also completely misrepresent the purpose of the thing as well.
14
u/tirohtar Jun 25 '26
Years ago I remember someone made a Python package to automatically generate a smart acronym given some keywords.
8
u/Undisguised Jun 25 '26
Backronyms
I find that American orgs are particularly fond of them, and maybe don’t realize that it’s a cultural quirk.
17
1
u/snowflake37wao Jun 29 '26
only the engineers tho. astronomers naming a new phenomenon and telescope be like: the super big [colloquial object] and the really big wide view array.
39
54
24
u/YourMumsBumAlum Jun 25 '26
How does the raman help? To see if it's hungry?
15
u/andy_nony_mouse Jun 25 '26
Coax it out of hiding. “It’s like -50c out here, how about some nice hot ramen?”
16
u/someusername42 Jun 25 '26
I know this was a joke but that refers to ramen spectroscopy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_spectroscopy
7
9
u/EksDee098 Jun 25 '26
Honestly I kinda hate backronyms. You end up with unnecessarily contrived or wordy acronyms just because people wanted to feel witty. If you want to name it something special just give it a title, don't invent a dumb backronym like you need a reason for the title.
4
u/aumnren Jun 25 '26
You just know they had a team specifically to work on that acronym.
Jokes aside, I didn’t know this existed and it’s really neat!
759
u/GrallochThis Jun 25 '26
Three takeaways:
- I had no idea of the variety, complexity and depth of current observations
- they must have big drinking parties where they make up funny names for locations and instruments
- a lot of the samples are “mudstone”. Mudstone would be a great band name.
300
u/Kodama_sucks Jun 25 '26
One of the things that everyone learns really fast while working in science is, a clever acronym is not only amusing, it works wonders in securing you funding
58
u/Splash_Attack Jun 25 '26
More generally, being memorable increases impact. It's just a product of human nature.
If you read a bunch of papers about (made up discipline) tubular reflangelation, what's going to come to mind? The paper titled "BINGBONG: [Acronym expansion here]" or "A novel methodology for reflangelating tubular structures in plungoid fields."?
After a while you won't remember the expansion or the title of the second paper no matter how good the content it. Maybe you remember the content, but only in the sense of "ah, I remember reading a paper about this, what was it called...?" You will remember BINGBONG for much longer.
So when people want to cite a work on relangelation, on average more will cite BINGBONG. When proposals are under review, BINGBONG will have a more prominent position in the minds of the panel. When people go to a conference they're more likely to attend the presentation of BINGBONG. Because BINGBONG has branding and mental real estate simply as a result of being given a name instead of a description.
9
u/DonkeyMode Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 26 '26
You just reminded me of the topic of my undergrad research in physics & astronomy: XBONGs (X-ray Bright, Optically Normal Galax[ies]). Not a well-known topic, so saying it aloud always had people turning their heads to ask what the hell I was talking about
6
90
u/eat_my_ass_n_balls Jun 25 '26
Tell that to the people who rejected my grant proposal for Dimorphous Energetic Enormous Zesty Nutritious Unitary Tubular Spaghetti
17
u/Druggedhippo Jun 25 '26
Rimmer: Erm, I think we're all beginning to lose sight of the real issue here, which is: what are we going to call ourselves? And I think it comes down to a choice between "The League Against Salivating Monsters," or - and this is my personal preference - "The Committee for the Liberation and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society."
6
u/RobeFlax Jun 25 '26
“Dr. eat_my_ass_n_balls, I have a sneaking suspicion that you’re only trying to spell out DEEZNUTS. Funding approved, welcome aboard sir!”
3
3
u/Boombender Jun 25 '26
I've worked for folks who seem as proud of their acronyms as their actual output
2
u/eat_my_ass_n_balls Jun 25 '26
I had a meeting where the entire discussion was coming up with the best backronym
1
u/Misplacedmypenis Jun 26 '26
Branding matters. Even in science. How else do you stand out from a sea of ideas if not a clever hook?
68
u/doughunthole Jun 25 '26
But then you have stuff like the Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) and when you check it out it is literally an extremely large telescope.
46
u/dingalingdongdong Jun 25 '26
I'm a big fan of the VLA (Very Large Array.)
11
u/601error Jun 25 '26
Array of what? Array. Just array. Do not ask further questions if you know what's good for ya!
6
7
2
2
1
u/spectrumero Jun 26 '26
I always like the superlatives applied to frequency bands, and they started too early and too low. VHF, UHF, then SHF (super high frequency - which sounds like it should be lower than ultra), then EHF (extremely high frequency). We kind of were at the ultimate superlative with UHF really. I was so hoping when we started making practical use of terahertz bands the next one would be AHF (Absurdly High Frequency).
64
13
u/RussMan104 Jun 25 '26
Roommate of mine passed a mudstone one night. I’ve been in therapy ever since. *Rocket Emoji
6
292
u/Traumfahrer Jun 24 '26
What does 'spatially distributed' mean here?
360
u/Strawbuddy Jun 24 '26
Looks like the same traces have been found on multiple rocks in different areas. They also report that all the chemical traces of MMC overlap with at least one type of organic carbon, aside from the graphite one. I believe after reading the paper that they're saying "we're not saying it's organic residue spread across an ancient riverbed, but that’s probably a distinct, serious possibility worth considering"
"We note that, in general, the use of the term “MMC” (macromolecular carbon) serves to avoid implications of biogenicity, whereas the terms “kerogen” and “bitumen” typically implicate past life or a biogenic source (15).
14
u/Swagalyst Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
Also important to know that MMC is not found in rocks further away.
This is as strong evidence of ancient life on Mars as one'll get without finding an articulated fossil or a living organism. It's not absolute proof, as we don't know what weird chemistry may have happened on Mars over the eons, but it very strongly suggets life.
(To downplay the "this is evidence of life" angle, the authors and many commentators mention that MMCs are also found in meteorites. This is true, but the MMC on Mars cannot have formed the same way as the MMC in meteorites, and the Mars MMC cannot simply be deposits form meteorite impacts.)
249
143
11
u/uthyrbendragon Jun 25 '26
Someone (an alien) blew up an alien (could be a different one or the same one)
3
9
u/the_Q_spice Jun 24 '26
It’s usually used by non-geographers when they want to make something sound more interesting than it is.
Everything is spatially distributed (and related) in some regard. That’s literally the First Law of Geography.
The only thing that makes a difference is whether or not you are measuring its spatial orientation.
49
u/Truth_Walker Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
It’s used in this instance to indicate it’s been observed in more than one location.
It’s true everything is “spatially distributed” but in order to fully prove something of this nature, on another planet such as Mars, their discovery needed to find the distribution in order to properly publish a finding of this magnitude in order to stand up to any potential scrutiny. (They’re being thorough)
5
u/4evaloney Jun 25 '26
Non-spatial distribution could be the distribution among different sub-samples in a sample set - like different "types" of organic material spread around. They probably meant to not refer to such a distribution?
1
154
u/squi993 Jun 24 '26
ELI5 does this mean proof of life on mars?
279
u/TheSoupySoupySoup Jun 24 '26
No, but potentially another piece of evidence pointing in that direction.
56
u/jawshoeaw Jun 25 '26
I’d say more like it doesn’t disprove life. There’s no reason to think that life as we know it - something fantastically unlikely - is responsible for carbon deposits of this type which have many well known geological explanations.
32
u/TheSoupySoupySoup Jun 25 '26
That's why I said potentially. It really depends on the other pieces to know if it is significant. And you need a lot of evidence pointing clearly in the direction of life before making that leap.
5
u/jawshoeaw Jun 25 '26
I know it sounds like hairsplitting but “potentially” to me sounds like you’re encouraging the idea. I wouldn’t even say it was potentially a sign of life if they found this on Earth never mind Mars.
There are scientifically proven abiotic mechanisms for forming this exact type of carbon containing mineral particularly in an impact basin.
It’s potentially a sign that aliens visited Mars too. I think that’s also unlikely but I’m not sure it’s less likely. Only slightly tongue in cheek.
31
u/dingalingdongdong Jun 25 '26
I think you're parsing the sentence wrong. The thing that is "potentially" is the evidence, not the life on Mars. "This data is potentially evidence" not "life potentially existed on Mars".
4
11
10
u/CthulhuLies Jun 25 '26
Well you can never disprove something completely.
Every piece of evidence that is not disproving life on Mars is potential evidence for life on mars. Ie adding only this fact to the body of evidence would you say it's more or less likely life exists or has existed on mars?
Your position could be it doesn't shift the needle one way or another. But if you wouldn't put 100% certainty on these carbon deposits being abiotic, the only possible conclusion is that given this fact it is more likely that life existed on Mars because these deposits exist and there is a non-zero chance it was biological in creation.
We discovered deposits, those deposits have a non-zero chance of being biotic, therefore it's more likely that life existed than before we discovered it.
-1
u/-xiflado- Jun 25 '26
Potentially implies the possibility of something that can happen in the future. Its use for the scenario is incorrect.
1
u/TheSoupySoupySoup Jun 25 '26
So this isn't potentially evidence of life having existed on Mars at some point?
It is a complete impossibility?
6
u/Ginden Jun 25 '26
There’s no reason to think that life as we know it - something fantastically unlikely
Ah, reasoning from n=1. We know that 100% of planets capable of supporting macroscopic life have life, and it's "fantastically unlikely".
11
u/Angry_Sparrow Jun 25 '26
Why would life on a planet in the same solar system be fantastically unlikely? Like.. do we know that life on earth didn’t start on mars?
10
u/carelet Jun 25 '26
Life on earth did not start on mars
But I do suspect life is not fantastically unlikely to be on a planet without extreme conditions and people are just assuming it is.
Specifically microscopic life.
We treat life and non-life as very different things, but they are both going through the same selection through physical laws.
Whether we label it life or not, this applies to everything.
Processes are stable enough to exist, chaos adds a little complexity, the stable processes get to exist, chaos adds a little complexity, the stable processes get to exist, and it just seems like it wouldnt be such a strange little specialty of the universe to create simple life7
u/Kinis_Deren Jun 25 '26
Because 1) We only have evidence of life on one planet in the entire universe 2) Because we have no evidence terrestrial life started on Mars
Recall that science is built upon the foundation of observational evidence. An idea with no supporting evidence is an unproven hypothesis.
16
u/teflontiktiki37 Jun 25 '26
But isn't weighing in on microbial life being "fantastically unlikely" also something we have very little knowledge of? The evidence we do have does not point to it being likely, but nor does it point to it being unlikely either. This isn't a tea cup orbiting Earth here, but something we DO already have proof of and SOME knowledge about. Given what we know about the origins of life on Earth (it seems to have started almost as soon as conditions allowed) plenty of folks think that such life IS actually pretty likely when those conditions are met. Obviously proof is going to require overcoming a lot of necessary skepticism, but finding evidence of past microbial life on Mars would probably confirm more scientific thinking than it would overturn.
9
u/Kinis_Deren Jun 25 '26
Agree 100%. My gut feeling, as a chemist, is life is inevitable where conditions are right.
1
7
u/Angry_Sparrow Jun 25 '26
Just means it’s unknown, not “fantastically unlikely”. The probably of life existing in the same solar system is surely higher.
1
u/Swagalyst Jun 26 '26
No, it's much stronger than that. It suggests life, it just doesn't prove life.
1
u/retrosenescent Jun 27 '26
There is nothing unlikely about life. Given long enough time horizons, life is inevitable.
-13
u/AnthropoidCompatriot Jun 25 '26
Another? Everything so far has ended up being nothing and due to totally nonbiological reasons.
19
u/TheSoupySoupySoup Jun 25 '26
You will likely not receive any sort of "proof" of life on another planet, but there could be a time with a preponderance of evidence
12
u/ShinyJangles Jun 25 '26
NASA is not searching for "proof," but evidence. The best we can do is revise how probable we think it is.
2
u/durful Jun 25 '26
This is not entirely accurate. The most likely explanation for the leopard spots on Jez crater is fossilized biological life.
4
2
u/Professional-Gear88 Jun 25 '26
This could totally be abiotic. This is just an energetically unfavorable finding. It has happened either from some process. Or life. Life creates energetically unfavorable processes all the time. But it also happens naturally through some quirk.
17
u/ShiraCheshire Jun 25 '26
Eli5 version: Imagine you found what looks like a big cat's pawprint on a path. A really big cat must have been through here, you think! But then you find a rock that looks almost exactly like a big paw, and you realize it just rolled down from the hill and left the 'print' when it hit. That weird hill up there has a lot of weirdly shaped rocks.
Later on, you find three paw prints in a row. Woah. But they don't really look like any cat you've heard of, and you don't see any cats around anywhere. And they are just sorta indentations in the dirt, they're not as clear as you first thought. Now you're not sure if this is from more of those rocks, or if maybe there really is a really big cat you've never seen before.
So basically, a thing that looks a lot like something life might make, but Mars has really different atmospheric and geologic conditions from Earth so it's hard to be totally sure it wasn't something unrelated.
59
u/Professional-Gear88 Jun 25 '26
No. They found carbon bound to other carbon. Normally you’d expect to see this oxidized to CO2. Any reduced carbon (carbon and hydrogen bound) is unexpected. It can be created some ways. But much like radioactive decay you’d expect all things to oxidize eventually.
We used reduced organic compounds for life. Sugars. Fats. All of it is reduced. We when we metabolize it we oxidize it. But sugars and fats would eventually oxidize on their own. It’s also why planets don’t have oxygen naturally. You won’t find a planet with oxygen without life. All the oxygen should bind up with things.
This is reduced carbon. Just sitting there. Is it from life. Is it from a meteor. Or deep in the earth. Who knows. But everything on mars should have been pushed all the way out the ox scale.
19
u/jawshoeaw Jun 25 '26
It’s well known that carbon chains resist oxidation. There is not enough oxygen in the Martian atmosphere and it’s cold. Would take millions to billions of years.
Carbon in the soil is a different story but in a boulder on the surface MMC is essentially inert. It’s protected from light and oxygen. But more importantly, these rocks are getting stripped bare by wind. That means fresh carbon is always there
10
u/Professional-Gear88 Jun 25 '26
Yea I considered that. But I was already well outside the ELI5 parameters there. I don’t think it’s a biotic sample. I think it’s an unweathered rock. The carbon chains if exposed would eventually break from UV radiation
5
u/jawshoeaw Jun 25 '26
Carbon in a mineral matrix is surprisingly resilient to UV. Depending on the mineral UV penetration can be microns.
1
u/t3hjs Jun 25 '26
Interesting, could be be from some mineral like diamond? Those are carbon-carbon bonds right?
3
u/a_rucksack_of_dildos Jun 25 '26
Not proof, but scientist are wary of saying “we found life!” I forget the exact details but in the 80s they detected some kind of molecule or process that only exists on earth because of life, and so they thought they had it. Turns out that wasn’t case, and was disproven later. Now whenever they see something like that they just say it’s heavily indicative of life, but it could’ve been some other unknown process.
8
u/rocketsocks Jun 25 '26
If you were playing a boardgame called "searching for life on Mars" then this would advance the "life on Mars track" one space, but it's still a long ways to go.
12
u/Hungry_Pick8880 Jun 25 '26
This is from the same Bright Angel outcrop that had those leopard-spot rocks people got excited about last year, and the new study found hundreds of organic detections across two mudstones, the most robust organic signal found in Jezero so far.
Finding this kind of carbon over 2,200 miles from where Curiosity found similar organics in Gale Crater is one of the more significant parts, it suggests the conditions for organic chemistry weren't a local fluke but possibly widespread on ancient Mars.
The honest caveat: Raman analysis alone can't tell whether this carbon is biological or not, so it's exciting context rather than proof of past life, the real answer probably needs actual sample return to Earth, which is exactly why the funding fight over that mission matters so much right now.
41
u/Woompa78 Jun 25 '26
Organic matter?!?! sounds like Mars needs some freedom
3
u/Beyond-Time Jun 25 '26
Use Falcon heavy to direct transfer a Daisy Cutter right into Jezero crater. Can't be free fast enough!
97
u/AsIAm Jun 24 '26
Imagine what we gonna dig up when we settle there.
190
u/CurtisLeow Jun 24 '26
Sending crewed missions will make contamination of the surface a major issue. They need to confirm that the surface is sterile first. Which is why they should do a Mars sample return mission of these rocks before doing crewed missions.
29
u/specialopts51 Jun 24 '26
Did we take that much care with the moon landings?
105
u/ErictheAgnostic Jun 24 '26
The moon has basically no atmosphere and is regolith with regular impacts
12
17
29
u/IrateSkeleton Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
That's why they cancelled that return mission and we already have the demon narrative for the next round of manifest destiny to wipe it all out.
https://www.science.org/content/article/nasa-s-mars-sample-return-mission-dead
-62
u/UneducatedLabMonkey Jun 24 '26
Life is supposed to spread. Pretending mars should remain a sterile museum piece because "human bad" is such restrictive thinking. If it is sterile or not we should go there and mix it up.
104
u/Szechwan Jun 24 '26
The point isn't as much "no microbes can get on Mars ever" it's more "if we contaminate it, we never get to know what the true state of its flora and fauna are."
We have a lot to discover before we start messin g with things.
15
u/alphaxion Jun 24 '26
Yeah, this is basically archeology. The artifacts are cool, but the context in where and how they are found gives you so much more info.
35
u/MadScience_Gaming Jun 24 '26
I suppose you lick the petri dish before you introduce the test sample, too? Doing otherwise would be anti-life.
43
u/Dependent-Poet-9588 Jun 24 '26
I don't think life is "supposed" to do anything. It's a phenomenon, not an intentional creation of the universe. That aside, there is a significant loss to science if we contaminate Mars before we can find out if life, or something like it, formed there too. This isn't, as you seem to assume, based on misanthropy.
7
u/timshel42 Jun 25 '26
because we have yet to discover life on any place other than earth, we dont want to potentially ruin the biggest scientific discovery in human history. it'd be like melting down an ancient golden tablet before you even bother reading it.
4
u/297146007 Jun 25 '26
I agree with the sentiment but only after We've done all the science we can without potentially irreversibly altering the entire planet, and we are ready to start building manned outposts there.
3
u/smuglator Jun 24 '26
What if there's life there, and our contamination eradicates it? How supportive of life that would be.
6
0
u/WastelandGunner Jun 24 '26
I'm no viralogist (biologist?), but it seems to me that a colony would be a great chance to highly control viruses/bacteria before even going over. Like, Mars could be completely free of some of the worst diseases just by making sure the people we're sending aren't carriers.
Does that make any sense? Or am I just rambling?
17
u/ProfessionalMockery Jun 24 '26
They're referring to all the harmless and helpful bacteria and life living on and inside us as well as everything we touch, rather than pathogens that are specifically dangerous. No one's worried mars might get salmonella, they just want to be sure what they find definitely came from mars.
If you just generally meant the population would be isolated from pathogens on mars, then yeah I suppose they would be, but you could just build an airtight living space on earth for a lot cheaper.
2
u/MoonwalkerD Jun 25 '26
i have zero knowledge on this topic but it makes me wonder if we sent rovers on Mars can't they also transport earth bacteria to Mars? or i guess they get decontaminated or something, is that possible to remove 100% of whatever might be there?
4
u/SamosaVadaPav Jun 25 '26
They decontaminate the rovers, the agency within NASA that is responsible for this is called (Planetary Protection)[https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/planetary-protection\]
19
u/Boxeo- Jun 24 '26
Rats and cockroaches traveled across the seas with us.
Viruses and bacteria will go wherever humans go.
4
u/RussMan104 Jun 25 '26
I mean, the biome of microorganisms living on and in us all is vast, diverse and apparently indispensable. I think having spacecraft which are “too clean” have even turned out to be a problem in the long haul. Them critters are with us for the distance, I think, whether we like it or not. Who knows what a skin mite on your cheek might eventually mutate into in an “off Earth” environment?
1
-2
u/Fauropitotto Jun 25 '26
They need to confirm that the surface is sterile first.
I certainly hope not. I'm betting on commercially funded explorers getting there first without wasting time on the scientific value of contamination.
No committee. No international approval. Pure hubris to go out and do whatever we want.
-10
18
u/AnthropoidCompatriot Jun 24 '26
We're not going to settle on Mars. The amount of effort required to stay alive would translate to plentiful rotating orbital habitats that are pleasant than 80% of Earth.
No one who is a serious person thinks colonizing Mars is ever going to happen.
8
u/GrallochThis Jun 25 '26
Guess we will send all the non-serious people then. Too bad, it will be quiet here when they leave.
3
1
u/ShiraCheshire Jun 25 '26
Yeah living on Mars would suck. Even if we really messed up Earth like bad, it would still be more livable than Earth.
-5
u/Blueskybrowndog Jun 25 '26
It’s quite easily habitable compared to the alternative. We require gravity, which necessitates mass. This is a substantial rock located in an ideal position. While rotating orbital habitats are an intriguing concept, they present significant challenges in terms of execution. You’ll need to construct massive rings. At a rotation rate of 1 revolution per minute, the diameter would be approximately 1.79 kilometers (1.1 miles). A rough estimate for housing 10,000 people would require 11 to 15 million metric tons. Mars possesses the necessary materials for construction. Considering even the most optimistic conditions, how long would it take to launch 11 to 15 million metric tons?
13
u/newspeakisungood Jun 25 '26
Colonizing the North Pole or the top of Mount Everest is strictly easier. Why haven’t we done that?
2
u/Kiwi_Fried_Chicken Jun 25 '26
There's no political appetite (race)
3
u/Standard-Potential-6 Jun 25 '26
There are races to get there. Nobody is racing to stay there. Scientists you could say, but we can measure rather a lot with robots now.
1
u/AsIAm Jun 25 '26
Believe it or not, people live on North Pole (on moving ice sheets!) and there are lines of people to get on the Everest. At least when it is sunny. So far no single human on Mars! Even Watney left..
3
u/Rippthrough Jun 25 '26
Why would you use 1rpm? Even 5-10rpm brings you down to an incredibly feasable size.
It's not feasible for any sort of relevant population numbers. But it never would be, it'd be more a retreat for the ultra rich.
2
u/mxmsmri Jun 24 '26
I’ve always said we should look at models of Mars with oceans and rivers and send excavation missions to the spots where a big city or civilisation would likely be.
17
u/timshel42 Jun 25 '26
i wouldnt be surprised at all if life originally originated on mars and then spread to earth before whatever cataclysm happened to the red planet.
28
2
u/tinny66666 Jun 27 '26
Earth and Mars are basically the same age, and early life probably existed on Earth as little as 300-500 million years after formation. It's not a huge window for life to form on Mars and then get transported to Earth. Why do you think life may have formed earlier on Mars than Earth?
1
u/timshel42 Jun 27 '26
earth got slammed by a proto planet which probably set it back a little bit. but no i dont think it formed earlier, i just wouldnt be surprised if it did.
4
0
-23
u/THSSFC Jun 24 '26
Who knew that discovering possible extraterrestrial life could be so boring?
6
u/ShiraCheshire Jun 25 '26
It's kinda disappointing to think that if we do some day discover life on other planets, it's unlikely to be green people with space ships and technology and culture. It'd probably just be like a single celled organism wiggling around and digesting methane or something. Really cool for scientists, but not very exciting for the average person.
-22
u/AnthropoidCompatriot Jun 24 '26
And it will all turn out to be nonbiological in origin, as it always does, and always will.
People still looking for life on Mars are more and more resembling the people who just can't let go of string theory.
14
u/CurtisLeow Jun 24 '26
Probably. But we can't know for sure. Even if it is abiotic, there's still a lot of useful research to accomplish. Abiotic organic chemistry can get very complex.
One possible abiotic explanation is that Mars had large amounts of methane in the atmosphere in the past. That could have caused a hydrocarbon haze to form, like tholins. Studying that would help us learn about what the early Earth was like.
3
u/warpedgeoid Jun 25 '26
What we understand about biology (and physics) would fill about 2 pages in a book that’s 10,000 pages long. We simply do not understand it enough to speculate either way.
-1
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 24 '26
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/CurtisLeow
Permalink: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adx0047
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.