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 *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
