Remix.run Logo
stevenjgarner 2 days ago

“After a year of review, they have come back and they said, listen, we can’t find another explanation,” said Acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy. “So this very well could be the clearest sign of life that we’ve ever found on Mars, which is incredibly exciting.” [1]

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/science/nasa-mars-sapphire-fa...

pncnmnp 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Some interesting stuff from the Nature paper

> The Perseverance rover has explored and sampled igneous and sedimentary rocks within Jezero Crater to characterize early Martian geological processes and habitability and search for potential biosignatures ..... the organic-carbon-bearing mudstones in the Bright Angel formation contain submillimetre-scale nodules and millimetre-scale reaction fronts enriched in ferrous iron phosphate and sulfide minerals, likely vivianite and greigite, respectively.

> Organic matter was detected in the Bright Angel area mudstone targets Cheyava Falls, Walhalla Glades and Apollo Temple by the SHERLOC instrument ..... A striking feature observed in the Cheyava Falls target (and the corresponding Sapphire Canyon core sample), is distinct spots (informally referred to as ‘leopard spots’ by the Mars 2020 Science Team) that have circular to crenulated dark-toned rims and lighter-toned cores

> PIXL XRF analyses of reaction front rims reveal they are enriched in Fe, P and Zn relative to the mudstone they occur in ..... In the reaction front cores, a phase enriched in S-, Fe-, Ni- and Zn was detected

> Given the potential challenges to the null hypothesis, we consider here an alternative biological pathway for the formation of authigenic nodules and reaction fronts. On Earth, vivianite nodules are known to form in fresh water ..... and marine ..... settings as a by-product of low-temperature microbially mediated Fe-reduction reactions.

> In summary, our analysis leads us to conclude that the Bright Angel formation contains textures, chemical and mineral characteristics, and organic signatures that warrant consideration as ‘potential biosignatures’ that is, “a feature that is consistent with biological processes and that, when encountered, challenges the researcher to attribute it either to inanimate or to biological processes, compelling them to gather more data before reaching a conclusion as to the presence or absence of life .....

I had to look up PIXL XRF from this paper - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.01544 - it is:

> The Planetary Instrument for X-ray Lithochemistry (PIXL) is an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer mounted on the arm of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Mars 2020 Perseverance rover (Allwood et al., 2020; Allwood et al., 2021). PIXL delivers a sub-millimeter focused, raster scannable X-ray beam, capable of determining the fine-scale distribution of elements in martian rock and regolith targets. PIXL was conceived following the work by Allwood et al. (2009) that demonstrated how micro-XRF elemental mapping could reveal the fine-textured chemistry of layered rock structures of ~3,450-million-year-old Archean stromatolitic fossils. Their work not only pushed back the accepted earliest possible window for the beginning of life on Earth, but also demonstrated that significant science return might be possible through XRF mapping. PIXL was proposed, selected, and developed to carry out petrologic exploration that provide the paleoenvironmental context required in the search for biosignatures on Mars, analogous to Allwood et al.’s earlier work.

awesome_dude 2 days ago | parent [-]

I like your analysis, but, personally, I am struggling with "Absence of data/other possibilities is pointing us to conclusion"

It should (IMO) be reported as, we just don't know (yet), there's some really fascinating things that we cannot explain in any other way, yet, but that doesn't actually mean that we know for sure.

eightysixfour 2 days ago | parent [-]

I don't understand this critique at all.

- We know this can happen through process A.

- Really smart people have thought a lot about it and don't see other ways that it reasonably happened in this scenario.

- This is pointing us to the conclusion that it happened through process A.

Is a perfectly reasonable logic chain for a scientific paper and their conclusion literally says "we need more data."

> compelling them to gather more data before reaching a conclusion as to the presence or absence of life”.

awesome_dude 2 days ago | parent [-]

What's not to understand - it's precisely the argument theists have put forward for millenia

"We couldn't find anything to show it wasn't a god, so it must be a god"

Calling one group "smart" doesn't change the process or the outcome - the absence of data is not data, it's just that we couldn't yet find the full explanation.

One day we might, it might actually be life, but we don't have that right now, so, actual science demands that we withhold any wild speculation.

eightysixfour a day ago | parent | next [-]

No, because theism is missing the first premise. The equivalent would be:

- We have observably seen and reproduced god bringing someone back from the dead - We can find no other explanation for this thing coming back from the dead - It was likely god who brought this thing back from the dead, but we want more data

The first premise has never happened, there is not any equivalence...

tim333 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"- We know this can happen through process A."

doesn't really apply to theism. "We know worlds can be created by gods" was never really a thing.

awesome_dude a day ago | parent [-]

We don't actually know.

We suspect that it's rubbish, but we don't have enough evidence to conclusively say one way or another.

awesome_dude 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Actually (It's too late to edit) we do have this curious thing

Aliens - we claim/recognise that statistically the size of the (at least observable, if not entire) universe and number of habitable planets with all the right ingredients for life that there must be life out there... somewhere

But we don't have an ounce of evidence (neither for nor against)

God(s) - we don't have any evidence one way or the other, atheists just say "It's impossible", theists say "It's the only answer", but, as already mentioned, there isn't any actual evidence that can lead us to a conclusion. (This will be misread as an argument for god(s), but it isn't. And even if it were, there's still a massive step between that and the Abrahamic God being the dude)

Which takes me right back to where this started. The supposition that the features of mars are signatures of life, we don't know at this point, all we actually know is... we haven't found anything else that we can say they are.

The reporting of science is causing so much grief (I mentioned it here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45190544 but was voted down for some reason)

pklausler 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

galacticaactual 2 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]