is life possible in mars? if so justify?

Answer 1

it's definitely possible.. we've found life on Earth in harsher environments than Mars has.. like at the bottom of the ocean where there is no sunlight..

Answer 2

We have seen biological life survive in some very hospitable climates here on earth. Life has survived during the last ice age, life survive the meteor impact 65 million years ago. Simple cellular and multicellular organisms have the unique ability to reanimate themselves. Examples; organisms that have been trapped under the ice in Antarctica for over millions years or the organisms that survived on the rover for two years after scrap peices were brought back from the moon. Life could possibly be found on Mars. Mars has better climate control than the moon because of its carbon dioxide atmosphere. There is small amounts of oxygen on Mars but it is found in trace amounts, hence the iron oxide in the soil. Life could exist on Mars but I would suggest that it would lie in primitive form underneath the soil. If life was ever to evolve on Mars the planet would have to be terraformed and have liquid water on it's surface. Plankton in the water would provide the oxygen in the water for life to develope and be the basis of the food chain for the evolution of life. I hope this helps.

Answer 3

It's quite possible that simple life-forms (algae, lichens, etc.) may be found on Mars. But it's kinda unlikely that anything more evolved will be found.

Doug

Answer 4

Was any life actually found?
One of Australia’s most ardent atheistic sceptics proclaimed ‘Mars life’ as a fact, and, without the caution one would expect from a scientist, used it as an excuse to launch another tirade against scientists who believe the universe and life were created. But the facts do not justify his dogmatic claims.

Some of the structures in the rock are unusual, and are shaped a bit like some bacteria. But you cannot judge most things by their outward appearance. The chief researcher for one team examining it admitted that such shapes could represent dried-up mud.

A huge problem with the alleged fossil bacteria is their tiny size — many times smaller than all known free-living bacteria. The Martian objects simply do not have enough room to pack in all the information needed for a self-reproducing cell. This is why William Schopf of the University of California, LA, a leading expert on microfossils, said: ‘I think it is very unlikely they have remnants of biological activity.’

Most people don’t know that another team which analysed the same rock found that it lacked a key sign of biological activity. The leader, Jim Papike, director of the Institute of Meteoritics at the University of New Mexico, said: ‘When we looked at the ratio [of two types of sulphur], there was no evidence that it was in a ratio for life forms.’ In fact, he said that the ratio pointed in the opposite direction.


Why did people think life was found?

Tiny globules of minerals called carbonates, with even tinier oval and tube-shaped objects on the surface. Limestone and marble, for example, consist mainly of carbonate minerals. However, the key paper concedes that ‘The origin of these globules is controversial’, and that they could have formed by processes unconnected with life. In particular, there is some evidence that they were formed at a temperature far too hot for life.

Molecules called PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, many of which are strong cancer-causing agents). However, these molecules are not always produced by living things. They are commonly found in soot and diesel exhaust. Also, 'PAHs are very widespread compounds in asteroids and not diagnostic of life' according to Robert Clayton, a geochemist at the University of Chicago. He also pointed out that PAHs in fossils have about a thousand times the variety of those in this rock.

Another possibility is that these chemicals are from Earth and contaminated the meteorite once it was here. Richard Zare, who headed the chemistry team, tried to rule out this explanation because there are more PAHs deep inside the rock than on the surface, whereas contaminants would tend to affect the surface more than the inside. But Robert Gregory, a geologist at Southern Methodist University points out that water could seep into the many fissures in the rock and concentrate PAHs on the inside, while those on the surface would be destroyed by UV light.

Certain iron compounds. The rock contains a mineral called magnetite, also called lodestone (which was used in the first compasses), as well as another mineral similar to 'fool's gold'. These minerals can be formed by living organisms or by processes having nothing to do with life. It is the occurrence of these minerals together which suggests (to some) that they were formed by living cells. But the researchers haven't ruled out all possible non-living processes.

Would life on Mars prove particles-to-people evolution?
Many sceptics have committed a logical error, because even if life were actually found on Mars, it would not prove that it had evolved there.

First, it could not rule out an Earth origin for that life. After all, if rocks can be blasted from Mars to Earth, it should be possible to blast them the other way. A less dramatic possibility, which scientists have considered for years, is that spores from Earth were pushed out of the upper atmosphere into space by light pressure, especially during a solar flare. Therefore, the alleged Martian life could originally have been seeded by Earth life.

Second, evolutionists have not succeeded in showing how non-living matter can jump the many hurdles required to form living cells.