Did Life Begin On Mars? New Evidence Suggests It Did

fb share tweet share

moon craterSome people are very particular about where they come from. While I’m an American, and a Louisianan, I prefer to say I come from South Louisiana, as that definition excludes me from the ranks of all the stereotypical North Louisiana morons that are seen on reality shows. It’s a mostly useless description to anyone that doesn’t live here, but it’s a pride thing. However, it’s a moot point if it turns out we all come from Mars, as certain new evidence suggests.

Professor Steven Benner, of the Westheimer Institute of Science and Technology, recently presented this theory at the Goldschmidt Meeting in Florence, Italy. He poses the argument that Earth’s state three billion years ago was lacking the specifics needed to kick start complex organisms, and that it’s likely a meteorite broken off of Mars allowed for life to form in the way it did. Billions of years ago, the Earth was full of carbon-based primordial ooze, which just wasn’t capable of creating RNA (ribonucleic acid), which is thought to be the first form of genetic material to have formed. When heat or light hit the soup, it’s far more likely that instead of life, the only result would have been a goopy tar.

On the flip side, during the Earth’s water covered years, it isn’t likely that a large enough amount of boron could have been created, as it is better suited to arid climates, much like Mars. As well, RNA and water don’t make great bedfellows, and the result would have been a bunch of corroded RNA. Benner explains:

Certain elements seem able to control the propensity of organic materials to turn into tar, particularly boron and molybdenum, so we believe that minerals containing both were fundamental to life first starting…Analysis of a Martian meteorite recently showed that there was boron on Mars; we now believe that the oxidized form of molybdenum was there too.

The element molybdenum is one of the more important components of life, and it can be sourced to Mars’ climate with more assuredness than it could have here on Earth. Benner continued:

It’s only when molybdenum becomes highly oxidized that it is able to influence how early life formed…This form of molybdenum couldn’t have been available on Earth at the time life first began, because three billion years ago the surface of the Earth had very little oxygen, but Mars did. It’s yet another piece of evidence which makes it more likely life came to Earth on a Martian meteorite, rather than starting on this planet.

I don’t know how you guys feel about this, but it’s encouraging to me, as it means that planets out there in space could similarly tag team creating a habitable spot for life to form. And not a single iota of Earthling pride is sacrificed. Maybe when the Mars One team takes their mission to Mars, they can get their hands on some hardcore evidence of water on the planet. Like a bunch of plastic bottles and a Slip ‘n Slide.


  1. gtillmon says:

    Read the BIBLE. It tells you where and how life began. Also, it tells you who created life.

  2. Verne Munroe says:

    Unfounded, speculative bullshit.

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” ~Carl Sagan

    This is just a theory. There is no significant evidence to support this theory. And yet GFR and others are acting like there was some huge scientific breakthrough that lends credence to this theory.

    How about waiting until it’s at least somewhat proven before y’all start to go around acting like we’re from Mars. It makes you look fucking stupid. Further, I expect better from you, GFR. Stick to what you know, Sci Fi.

    • UnRiel says:

      I read years ago that our bio-rhythms matched the Martian Day perfectly which is close to Earth’s day but a few minutes short of 24 hours. Yes it is still speculative of course. But it is still persuasive and worth sharing so others can perhaps contribute to the ideas.

      • Verne Munroe says:

        If there is any truth to that, it is a coincidence. Life began on this planet a few billion years ago, and after such an incredible amount of time, and after so many stages of evolution, life on this planet wouldn’t time itself to the rotational and transitional patterns of another planet. That makes no sense. We didn’t come from Mars. We evolved here, ultimately, from a microscopic organism (though, of course, there were numerous steps in that process). Everything about us is based around this planet, because this is where we evolved.

        And as for the “persuasive” aspect… Just because something is persuasive, doesn’t mean a damn thing, nor does it mean it should be shared. Government propaganda is persuasive as well, that doesn’t mean there is any truth to it. And frankly, it’s not worth sharing when the scientific evidence to lend even the slightest bit of credence to the theory doesn’t exist. It’s nothing but speculation. Thus, it’s not science.

        • UnRiel says:

          Verne, that is an excellent summation of orthodox scholarship that I could have gotten from any wikipedia or child’s encyclopedia.

          You’re on a sci-fi site. Speculation is the currency. Speculation guides scientists into unusual direction and sometimes discoveries are made this way. You seem way too invested in not questioning the consensus.

          • Verne Munroe says:

            I have no problem “questioning the consensus”, none at all. But this “Theory” isn’t backed by anything other than speculation. Science is about fact. Observable, repeatable fact.

            What I have a problem with is journalists taking what is basically scientific day dreaming, and packaging it like it’s fact, or is likely to be the truth. The title of this article is: “Did Life Begin On Mars? New Evidence Suggests It Did”

            That title is completely inaccurate. It should be titled: “Did Life Begin On Mars? A New Fringe Theory Suggests It Might Have”

            By using the word “Evidence”, that suggests to the reader that there is some tangible proof to suggest life did start on Mars… But there is no tangible proof. This theory is complete speculation. He speculates about the state of the Earth 3 billion years ago, when in reality we have no real way of knowing what it was really like back then, as the oldest parts of the surface of the planet are only a couple hundred million years old. He speculates about how a meteor may have somehow broken off of Mars and somehow managed to travel a very long distance through open space (whilst being exposed to large amounts of Solar radiation), enter Earth’s atmosphere, and survive it’s trip through the atmosphere intact enough to seed the planet with the speculated missing components needed for life to form. This theory isn’t Science yet, it’s far from it, actually. There is far too much speculation, and zero supporting evidence. And yet, this article is worded in a way that suggests to the reader that there is actual science behind the Theory, when in reality there is none.

            So, I guess, in a way, it is kind of appropriate for it to be on a science fiction based website, because I’d call this theory “science fiction” as it sure as hell isn’t scientific fact.

  3. Matt Adele Harris says:

    Oh, my God. Again with: “We are bery excited to tell you that it is likely there might be a chance that possibly under the right circumstances we could assume that life may have originated by an unknown process we cannot duplicate any part of or describe in any detail. “

  4. theonetrue says:

    I never heard anyone in the church say
    “wait we should find out if this is true before we preach it”
    the whole bible is speculative bullshit

    • Matt Adele Harris says:

      Actually if you went to some churches you probably would hear that. Most people who say they are Christian don’t preach, I wonder why?