Filled Under: , , , ,

New evidence supports theory that life may have started on Mars

New evidence presented by Professor Steven Benner at The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology in Florida suggests that, billions of years ago, Mars was a much better place for the first cells to have formed compared to Earth. This gives more weight to the theory that life may have started on the Red Planet and then found its way to Earth aboard a meteorite.

Life on Earth
The fossil record tells us that life first appeared on our planet around 3.5 billion years ago, but we know very little about how the first cells came to be.

Scientists theorize that, as the Earth slowly cooled down, simple organic compounds (monomers) slowly formed and combined into more complex compounds (polymers). Then, as sea currents pooled these large molecules by "hotspots" like oceanic shores and hydrothermal vents on the sea floor, they may have eventually combined to form the first protocells.

However these building blocks combined, there is growing evidence that the first cells replicated using RNA instead of DNA, and that the switch to DNA replication, which is stabler but harder to achieve, happened only much later in the history of evolution. (One convincing piece of evidence for this is that many of the critical components of cells, which evolve the slowest, are composed mostly or entirely of RNA.)



Inconsistencies
According to Benner, if the RNA hypothesis is true then the story just doesn't add up.

Scientists believe that when life first appeared on Earth our planet was completely submerged in water and very low in dioxygen. Benner says life couldn't have originated under these conditions because borate and molybdate, two crucial catalysts to the formation of RNA, would have been extremely rare.

"If early Earth really was a 'water world,' then borate concentration would have been difficult," Prof. Benner tells Gizmag. "For molybdate, the problem is that it is highly oxidized (four oxygen atoms for every molybdenum atom), and ancient Earth probably did not have much dioxygen in the atmosphere."

When simple organic molecules dissolved in water are given a source of energy but no borate or molybdate are present, the end result is tar, not RNA. Borate minerals help simple organic molecules form carbohydrate rings, and molybdenum then rearranges these rings to form ribose, a crucial building block of RNA. Both these minerals would have been extremely scarce on early Earth, but abundant on Mars.



Life on Mars
Out of the 120 Martian meteorites we have collected so far, some contain promising evidence to support Benner's theory.

"Analysis of a Martian meteorite recently showed that there was boron on Mars," says Benner. "We now believe that the oxidized form of molybdenum was there too. In addition, recent studies show that these conditions suitable for the origin of life may still exist on Mars."

The prospect of extremophile bacteria surviving the trip to Earth inside a meteorite isn't as far-fetched as it may seem.

"We spend much time on 'planetary protection' so that a launch to Mars does not carry Earth bacteria to forward contaminate Mars, but we find that many bacteria (like radiodurans) can survive the trip, especially if tucked inside of the craft (or, by analogy, within the meteorite)," Benner says.

While there is no "smoking gun," the evidence presented by Prof. Benner gives more credibility to the theory that life may have first started on Mars rather than Earth. It also gives us more hope of finding life back on the Red Planet, and perhaps even elsewhere in the solar system.

Written by

We are Creative Blogger Theme Wavers which provides user friendly, effective and easy to use themes. Each support has free and providing HD support screen casting.

15 comments:

  1. The chances of anything coming from Mars, are a million to one they said...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The chances of anything coming from Mars, are a million to one... but still they come.

      Delete
  2. It explains why life could have arrived here from Mars, but how did it survive/ advance?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is an explanation consistent with all available evidence, like the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, the theory of evolution, etc. Confusion about this word lets creationists and climate change deniers do their dirty work, so please try to use it correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The chances of anything coming from Mars, are a million to one they said..."

    Yes, but a million to one chance event would have happened thousands of times in the 4 thousand million years Earth and Mars have been around.

    Have a look at this paper that argues that:

    "The conclusion is that if microbes existed or exist on Mars, viable transfer to Earth is not only possible but also highly probable, due to microbes' impressive resistance to the dangers of space transfer and to the dense traffic of billions of martian meteorites which have fallen on Earth since the dawn of our planetary system. Earth-to-Mars transfer is also possible but at a much lower frequency."

    ReplyDelete
  5. anusdick le reddit

    ReplyDelete
  6. How does a meteorite get the 'ooomph' to launch from Mars, escape its gravitational pull, and miraculously head in the right direction to hit Earth in the middle of nowhere?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Noah's Ark was a spaceship from Mars. Just sayin.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Does this mean that Adam and Eve were Martians?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Never tell me the odds. On a more serious note, what are the odds of life starting ON the planet Earth, were they not also astronomical?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Scientist believed that human-kind could set their lives on "Mars" apparently they are wrong. If there is any chance of life existed on Mars then this is impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Its far fetched but has that ring of truth. Likely more could be done by regression aging different types of RNA and DNA to see when aspects were introduced. Maybe there were several cycles of reintroduction.

    I'm guessing that our solar system has plenty of life, maybe more in the other planets, asteroids and comets than our earth itself

    ReplyDelete
  12. This doesn't seem that unlikely. Mars was hospitable then, Earth was not. Small lifeforms aren't particularly harmed by time floating around in rocks. Some type of regression timeline could likely be done with RNA and DNA to see when different aspects were added. Maybe there were several introductions.

    I'd guess there's lots of life in asteroids, comets and the planets, maybe more than the earth has.

    ReplyDelete

© 2013 iPRESS. All rights resevered. Designed by Templateism