life on mars is impossible!!

What are the odds of finding life on mars? What are the odds of finding life anywhere???
Statistically speaking, isn't it easier to find a perfectly assembled V-8? or even just a perfect sphere.. than finding life?

That's a dumb post you've made twice now serge - give it a rest...

We have one sample size of life: ours.

We cannot extrapolate probabilities from a single sample. We have no way of knowing whether life is common, rare, or that we are unique.

Perhaps tellingly, life arose almost immediately after earth cooled. That might suggest that when conditions are right, life immediately "takes." But then again, it might not suggest that. Maybe we caught a fantastically lucky break.

Statistics can't operate with a single sample. Also, the OP seems to imply that life is a matter of "chance." We don't know that. Certainly evolution is not a matter of "chance." It has a chance component: random mutation. But everything else about evolution is the antithesis of chance.

Wow, what a bonanza of cliches!

"We have one sample size of life: ours."
Sorry, but we have one planet about which we
are relatively aware --Earth. There are
billions of species on Earth -- hardly "one
sample". Ah but of course you meant that all
these billions of species evolved from one and
only one single origination of life on Earth,
right? (That's your implicit cliche.) But
that is an implicit assumption at best.
There are no measures or even significant
studies of this notion that life on Earth
originated once and only once. (Before you
say it is "obvious" or your priest told you
so, consider the recent studies of radically
divergent extremophiles.)

"We cannot extrapolate probabilities from a single sample." We do not know that the
billions of species on Earth are "a single
sample".

" life arose almost immediately after earth cooled" This is a meaningless statement.
You must give a measure as to what you mean
by "cooled", and what qualifies as "almost
immediately", and then give a measure with
error bars (the error bars on this will be
huge) as to when "life arose". I know, your
science teacher told you "life arose almost
immediately after earth cooled", but that is
not good enough, in fact it might be wrong
-- give the measures.

"Statistics can't operate with a single sample."
Well now, that is a breakthrough realization!

"Certainly evolution is not a matter of "chance." It has a chance component: random mutation. But everything else about evolution is the antithesis of chance". These are
unmeasured assetions about the mechanisms of
evolution. Nevertheless, even if this were
true, what would (evolution of life, NOT
origin of life) have to do with the essence of
this thread -- the probability of life having
originated?? -- Nothing.

Is the beginning of life considered as an extraordinary combination of events, the right mixture at the right time, involving bilions of factors, and therefore extremely difficult to reproduce? Especially when taking into consideration entropy? Where everything leads toward chaos instead of organization.. Evolution seems to be nothing compared to the creation of the first living cell.

Therefore, before talking about evolution, is life really possible somewhere? i believe there are more chances that both rovers find another one identical to themselves.. than finding a proof of a living cell.

Spirit, opportunity and ...

maybe the only reason that we think life is so next to impossible to start somewhere is because we don't have the ability to comprehend it.....maybe its just something that just happens very easily and often? who knows

Good point!

Eyes seem to have evolved multiple times, as have legs/limbs (arthropods vs. land vertebrates), fins (fish, (extinct) swimming reptiles, marine mammals, etc.), and even warm-bloodedness (mammals, birds, and even some plants, to a degree). So why should the same not be true for life itself? I believe it is entirely possible that every planet gets a chance to sustain life, and that many of them succeed, though many more do not (somewhat analogous to the swimming reptiles mentioned above, which evolved fins but later became extinct).

If you have water for a long time, volcanism, and a good mix of chemicals found on any planet, I'd say 100%

For the record, I disagree totally with the statement at the head of this thread. I agree with Karl. I think that life is likely to have got going on Mars within a few hundred million years after its formation (more than 4 billion years ago), just like on Earth - microbial life. I also think it possible that some of that microbial life may still be alive today, that's what the Beagle 2 craft would have searched for and the detection of methane may also be pointing to that possibility (although there are geological explanations too). But anything bigger - real evidence is needed and hasn't appeared yet.

it is ok to disagree. But based on what? Thoughts and feelings? It is ok to dream..

But that was not my point..
I am not dreaming when I say that the possibilities of a natural assembly of all the required composants for life, in the right order, the right quantity,in the right environment are extremely weak.

My point is that it would be a lot more probable to find a perfectely "naturally" assembled man made object. For exemple, it seems that there is a lot of basalt on Mars. Therefore, what are the odds of finding a "naturally" made basalt pool table? Made completely of basalt. it seems that it would be almost impossible. Even if I am thinking of only one type of material.

However, life is infinitely more complex than a basalt pool table. What are the odds of finding it? Almost none.

So.. What is more probable?
If we were following spirit in a middle of a "naturally" made baseball field I would say.. yeah.. Maybe we can did a little bit to see if we can find life..

The elements for life and water are the most common elements in the galaxy. You are more likely to find the building blocks for life on planets. Amino acids even form in the dust of space. Amino acids can self replicate a wet environment. organic compounds also form naturally and can form protective bubbles (you know, cell walls)in water.

I beleive that life formation is a normal geo-chemical process of planet formation. It is not that mysterious or hard.

I've already posted this in this blog 3 or 4 times. Sorry for the repost guys.

Amino acids and organic compounds are not alive... There are not "life".

Organic compounds are not alive? Bummer, how does it feel to be dead?

The transition between organic compounds and self-replicating systems is one of the great mysteries - but we know it happened don't we?

What are the odds of finding life on mars? What are the odds of finding life anywhere???
Statistically speaking, isn't it easier to find a perfectly assembled V-8? or even just a perfect sphere.. than finding life?

Probably - according to that reasoning, the odds against us existing at all are virtually nil, but as we quite clearly do exist (I think this is a philosophical given), it isn't too far fetched to look for life elsewhere.

Oh.... I am dead..?
And methane is alive...? As well as benzene, ethene, etc...?

Unless you see yourself as a compound, organic compound are not alive.. They may be considered as primary blocks for life as we know it.. but very far from being life itself...

Given the immensity of the universe, and the extraordinary period of time since the beginning of the universe, there was maybe a chance for life to happen. Even statically speaking.. And we are the only one who can confirm that it happened. Who else?

However, what are the odds for it to happen again.. ???
More.. what are the odds to for it to happen again on our next door neighbour soil ???

We are made of organic compounds. I'm not sure where you are drawing the distinction between 'organic compounds' and 'made of organic compounds', here.

Also, methane is NH3 and as such is not organic. I'm not sure what the makeup of the other compounds you listed are..

Sorry, but methane is CH4...

Whoops. I was thinking of ammonia.. weird. I stand corrected.

All the compounds i listed are organic compounds... hydrocarbons... And I believe that is what Karl was referring to.

They all are organic compounds and, obviously, are not alive..

The chemical nomenclature calls "organic compounds" any molecules formed of carbon bounded to hydrogen ...in many forms.

As strange as it sounds, the "organic" in "organic compound" doesn't mean life at all. However, it seems to confuse a lot of people.

Amino-Acids and organic compounds are simply primary bounds between atoms and thus can't be considered the source of life.