Scientists are looking for DNA on Mars.

[ThaG]

There are two basic scientific schools of thought as to how all life came to be. One theory says that life on Earth arose spontaneously and it could have done so in our galaxy and all across the universe. The other theory is that all life arose from a single universal ancestor. Dr. Gary Ruvkun from MGH and Dr. Maria Zuber from MIT are studying the potential for life on Mars and if there is life, whether it's related to human life. Mars is the closest planet to Earth and many scientists believe it shared material with Earth via massive meteoritic exchanges billions of years ago. If we did share material, Ruvkun and Zuber say, Martian life could be related to life on Earth. Scientists are continually discovering microbial life that has adapted to extreme environments � high radiation, frozen, and near boiling conditions � showcasing their amazing ability to adapt and utilize whatever energy that's available to survive. If life was exchanged between Earth and Mars billions of years ago - when Mars could have been similar to early Earth, microbes could have adapted to the extreme environment on Mars over time and survived to the present day.

All organisms on Earth share about 500 "universal genes." One such gene is called 16S ribosomal RNA. Ribosomal RNA genes are the major building blocks of the ribosome, a molecular machine that produces proteins. Because of its slow rate of change, scientists believe the 16S gene is the best detector of life.

Ruvkun and Zuber are developing a prototype of a machine that could travel to Mars and perform DNA analysis on site. Zuber and Ruvkun hope to find evidence of the 165 ribosomal gene3, which would demonstrate a connection between Martian and Earth life. The machine uses a technique called PCR that amplifies or replicates specific regions of DNA so the DNA can be analyzed and sequenced. It is the most sensitive and powerful tool available to detect DNA. PCR can detect a single DNA double helix. NASA is funding the prototype development and Ruvkun, Auber and MJ Research initially will be testing it on soil samples designed to mimic Martian-like conditions � including samples from the Arctic and Antarctic.

The landing craft will have the ability to retrieve soil samples from the surface of Mars and deliver them to the PCR machine on board. Through an internal 'plumbing system' the machine will mix the samples with water, and then repeatedly heat and cool the mixture to copy any DNA that may be present in the mixture. Zuber and Rubkun say the discovery of DNA on Mars would shed new light on the origins of how all life arose.

 

[ThaG]

Soil From Mars May Be Tested For Signs of Life
By Gareth Cook
THE BOSTON GLOBE
May 1, 2007

Since the completion of the human genome project, biologists have been fanning out to study the genetics of virtually every imaginable life form: armadillo, potato, slime mold, various fungi, and many, many others. To this list, Harvard biologist Gary Ruvkun would like to add extraterrestrial life.

Of course, it's impossible to study the genetics of something that hasn't been found. But then that, Ruvkun says, is the whole idea.

With preliminary funding from NASA, Ruvkun is working on a sensor designed to test the soil of Mars for DNA. Ruvkun hopes that the sensor his team is working on, the first part of a project he has dubbed the "Search for Extraterrestrial Genomes," will be a part of a Mars lander mission in the next decade.

The project represents a sharp break from the reigning philosophy of life detection: avoiding an earth-centric view of what life might look like. In the 1970s, for example, the Viking lander conducted tests for signs of chemical changes that might be associated with life, without assuming life there would be exactly as it is on earth.

Instead, inspired by evidence that microbes can shuttle between planets aboard meteors, Ruvkun argues it is most likely that any life on Mars would be related to life on Earth and thus have roughly similar DNA. The project is an example of jackpot science — long odds, huge potential payoff — and will eventually present NASA with a difficult philosophical decision.

"I admire the ideas," said Andrew Knoll, a professor of natural history at Harvard University who is involved with Mars exploration. "But the opportunities to actually land on Mars over the next 20 years appear to be limited, and there is going to be a lot of competition to fly."

The allure of the project has attracted a high-profile team of scientific talent. Ruvkun, a professor at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, is a highly respected geneticist. One active team member is Maria Zuber, head of MIT's department of earth, atmosphere, and planetary sciences and considered one of the world's top designers of scientific instruments for space exploration. Also involved is Nobel Prize winner Walter Gilbert, a professor of biology at Harvard, and a number of other leading figures.

The project's prospects depend on a bit of deep history. About 4 billion years ago the planets experienced a period of intense bombardment. Meteors came crashing down to the surface, ejecting more rocks into space, some of which came crashing down onto other planets. Life on Earth appeared very quickly after the bombardment — too fast, Ruvkun believes, to have evolved on its own.

The bombardment, Ruvkun believes, could have brought life to Earth from somewhere else. And if life on earth came from somewhere else, then perhaps it also came to Mars from "the same somewhere else," Ruvkun says. Martian rocks have been found on earth, and an analysis of one of them revealed that portions of its core never experienced superheating as it fell to earth, showing that meteors could be viable shuttles for life. At the same time, research has shown that there are microbes that have adapted to almost unbelievably extreme environments — including the radioactive cores used on nuclear power plants and the hot, crushing depths of deep-sea ocean vents. Astronauts on the Apollo 12 mission found microorganisms that survived for years in the camera of a craft sent to the moon's surface.

The team is building a sensor that uses PCR, a technique that allows for the detection of incredibly minute quantities of DNA, to look for portions of two genes that have been found in all life whose genes have been sequenced. They play a crucial role in assembling protein, a central function in living things. If life on Mars has a common origin with life on Earth, Ruvkun reasons, then it will probably share these genes.

Still, the idea is a gamble – a "jackpot experiment," as Ruvkun calls it. It would yield a positive result only if there were life on Mars that is related to life on earth. This has brought some skepticism among other scientists, who argue that it does not make sense to look for DNA before testing for more general signs of life.

"It would not be my first choice," Norman R. Pace, a biologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said in an e-mail. Pace specializes in using DNA techniques to find microorganisms.

Building such a device will be a tremendous challenge: Space, power, and weight all come at an extreme premium on space missions. It will be especially challenging, Zuber said, to ensure that fluids inside the device flow reliably — a requirement for PCR to function — even though it is operating in the extreme Martian environment. The team is still far from having a device ready for flight and has not been approved for flight by NASA, Zuber and Ruvkun said.

An even bigger issue, Ruvkun said, is overcoming the risk of contamination – that the team will find microbes that hitched a ride aboard the same Mars lander that brought the experiment. The team is working on a number of engineering solutions to the problem, but there is also a biological answer. If the team finds DNA, they could compare it to the same two genes found in earthbound organisms. This would allow them to place the new DNA in the family tree of life. If it appears closely related to something on Earth, then it's probably contamination, but if it appears to be a distant cousin, then the history of life will have to be rewritten.

Many scientists doubt that there is anything currently living in the harsh Martian environment. But Ruvkun does not count himself among the pessimists.

"Never bet against life," he said.

 

[ParkBoyz]

There are two basic scientific schools of thought as to how all life came to be. One theory says that life on Earth arose spontaneously and it could have done so in our galaxy and all across the universe. The other theory is that all life arose from a single universal ancestor.

And the most widely accepted theory is that both of these theories are improbable (with the second one being looney) and indirect evidence actually points to the existence of a creator.

Steven Hawking demonstrates in the Documentary "A Brief History Of Time" that if the Universe actually had a beginning, then it's plausible to believe in a creator. Most evidence right now points to a beginning (big bang), there are theories of infinite multi-verses, yet they're in no way provable, let alone detectable.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

And the most widely accepted theory is that both of these theories are improbable (with the second one being looney) and indirect evidence actually points to the existence of a creator.

Considered improbable by loony creationists.


"All organisms on Earth share about 500 "universal genes." One such gene is called 16S ribosomal RNA. Ribosomal RNA genes are the major building blocks of the ribosome, a molecular machine that produces proteins. Because of its slow rate of change, scientists believe the 16S gene is the best detector of life."

This is satan talk!

Thanks for the post, ThaG. Good read

 

[FunK-3-FivE]

And the most widely accepted theory is that both of these theories are improbable (with the second one being looney)

HAHAHA and this is widely accepted by whom? American Christian-Conservatives from the South who's only concept of evolution is just a picture of an ape morphing into a man? Please.

and indirect evidence actually points to the existence of a creator.

Do you understand ANYTHING about the scientific method? Intelligent Design by definition CANNOT even qualify as a scientific theory. No one has come up with a Creationist theory that could qualify as scientific theory. If you don't know what I'm talking about then don't bother to argue, hit the books and learn.

Steven Hawking demonstrates in the Documentary "A Brief History Of Time" that if the Universe actually had a beginning, then it's plausible to believe in a creator.

This is Hawking's philosophy, not quite a scientific hypothesis.

there are theories of infinite multi-verses, yet they're in no way provable, let alone detectable.

Read about Einstein's theory of Relativity and after that you can begin to study Quantum Mechanics & Physics. And then you could possibly be able to understand this better and what it means. However majority of people can't comprehend Einstein's more advanced studies, and it's statistically improbable that you would be able to.

 

[ThaG]

Considered improbable by loony creationists.


"All organisms on Earth share about 500 "universal genes." One such gene is called 16S ribosomal RNA. Ribosomal RNA genes are the major building blocks of the ribosome, a molecular machine that produces proteins. Because of its slow rate of change, scientists believe the 16S gene is the best detector of life."

This is satan talk!

Thanks for the post, ThaG. Good read

BTW I would say they are rushing things up a quite a bit

It would be a better idea to send a shotgun multiplex sequencer which would provide information about the whole genome of whatever is there, if anything is there

Sure, these machines are not yet developed to the stage where they could be sent to Mars, but we are not sending anything there in the near future anyway

 

[ParkBoyz]

HAHAHA and this is widely accepted by whom? American Christian-Conservatives from the South who's only concept of evolution is just a picture of an ape morphing into a man? Please.

No, about 95% of the planet.. Not that it means anything at face value, but in this case I believe it does..

Do you understand ANYTHING about the scientific method? Intelligent Design by definition CANNOT even qualify as a scientific theory. No one has come up with a Creationist theory that could qualify as scientific theory. If you don't know what I'm talking about then don't bother to argue, hit the books and learn.

Your condescending tone will in no way increase your IQ, so save me the antics please. Evolution skips major steps in the scientific method, like observation and experimental tests, yet ironically still tries to exalt its self above the status of "theory".. Your reply was extremely naive, you should of came at it from a different angle.

This is Hawking's philosophy, not quite a scientific hypothesis.


Read about Einstein's theory of Relativity and after that you can begin to study Quantum Mechanics & Physics. And then you could possibly be able to understand this better and what it means. However majority of people can't comprehend Einstein's more advance studies, and it's statistically improbable that you would be able to.

First of all, Hawking isn't a philosopher, get that straight first, he proposed it as part of his scientific discourse. And this is Laughable! Quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity is so far, incompatible! Einstein did not believe in Quantum theory because in his words, "God does not play dice". Maybe you don't understand that "the theory of everything" is non-existent, there can be no proof of any multi-verse with these incompatible theories and that's why the proposition of a Multi-verse is seriously downgraded to just a seemingly plausible hypothesis, but there's nothing at all to indicate that it's true besides a weak understanding of gravity and sub atomic particles. In efforts to explain the unexplainable scientists use their imagination, in a similar way that evolutionists do.

 

[ThaG]

No, about 95% of the planet.. Not that it means anything at face value, but in this case I believe it does..

let me reimnd you, if you don't already know, that 95% of people (not necessarily the same 95%, but the overlap is obviously more than significant) on this planet are idiots, and their opinion doesn't mean shit because it's derived from whatever they were told, rather than their own thought process (if such a thing exists in their heads, of course)

Your condescending tone will in no way increase your IQ, so save me the antics please. Evolution skips major steps in the scientific method, like observation and experimental tests, yet ironically still tries to exalt its self above the status of "theory".. Your reply was extremely naive, you should of came at it from a different angle.

LMAO

Give me examples of "skipping major steps in the scientific method"...

And of course, evolution does that, because evolution has nothing to do with the scientific method, evolution is the constant process of changes in the genetics of population. It happens independently form whether there are people who use the scientific method or not. Evolutionary theory explains how evolution works, in case you don't know, and last time I checked people who work on evolutionary theory (for some strange reason these include 99.999% of biologists, excluding practicing clinicians) are keen supporters of the scientific method, who rigorously apply it in each and every aspect of their work

Which, quite unfortunately, is not true for "scientists" from the Discovery Institute

I find it very weird and unsettling that people identify evolution and evolutionary theory as one and the same, and they fight both in the same time

 

[FunK-3-FivE]

No, about 95% of the planet.. Not that it means anything at face value, but in this case I believe it does..

And what percentage of the DEVELOPED, EDUCATED, world believes this?

Evolution skips major steps in the scientific method, like observation and experimental tests, yet ironically still tries to exalt its self above the status of "theory"

Evolution has been observed through experimentation numerous times. I've stated this an infinite amount of times on this board and it seems majority of people are ignorant (specifically Americans) when it comes to recent knowledge in the scientific community... one word... MICROEVOLUTION (the evolution of micro-organisms such as bacterias, viruses, microbes). The end.

First of all, Hawking isn't a philosopher, get that straight first, he proposed it as part of his scientific discourse.

If so, explain to me how his theory is falsifiable, if you can do this then you my friend would be making history right here on the GOM and you could be the first person to prove that a creationist theory can qualify as a scientific theory.

Quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity is so far, incompatible!

Wow, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Relativity_and_quantum_mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

BTW Einstein's theory of relativity is the reason why Quantum Electrodynamics is accepted amongst the scientific community.

Einstein did not believe in Quantum theory because in his words, "God does not play dice".

HAHA if you knew anything about Einstein you would know he kept his personal beliefs and scientific studies very separate, this quote obviously was not meant to be taken literally. What he meant by this is that the laws of relativity if studied were not random jargon but instead very exact. Apparently he also used the phrase when disagreeing with Newtonian mechanics, basically when arguing Determinism vs. Indeterminism.

Maybe you don't understand that "the theory of everything" is non-existent,

Where did I ever propose such an idea?

there can be no proof of any multi-verse with these incompatible theory and that's why the proposition of a Multi-verse is seriously downgraded to just a seemingly plausible hypothesis,

Of course it can't be proven. LOL, I never suggested that it could. I told you to read up on Einstein's Relativity and then study the Quantum Physics and Mechanics. You obviously have very limited knowledge on the subject and I suggest that if you wish to talk about it you should rather consider studying more. Otherwise you come in stating blatant misconceptions and then repeating obvious tidbits as if you were making any progress in discussion.

but there's nothing at all to indicate that its true besides a weak understanding of gravity and sub atomic particles.

Once again you obviously have an EXTREMELY limited knowledge of Relativity and Quantum Physics. I urge you to study it further before posting rubbish off the top of your head. What makes you think you can speak on something you obviously don't even have basic knowledge of? It's obvious you're a person who has never studied a damned thing on Relativity and Quantum Physics.

In efforts to explain the unexplainable scientists use their imagination, in a similar way that evolutionists do.

LMAO, wow. And where did you get your extremely undereducated view of science?

 

[2-0-Sixx]

And what percentage of the DEVELOPED, EDUCATED, world believes this?

Good question.

Only Turkey is lower than the US.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

No, about 95% of the planet.. Not that it means anything at face value, but in this case I believe it does..


.

Do NOT pull numbers out of your ass, please. This is a BOLD lie and you know it.