https://www.techspot.com/news/99389-nasa-perseverance-rover-finds-diverse-organic-material-ancient.html
Perseverance touched down on the Red Planet in early 2021 and has been active ever since. The rover was designed to explore the Jezero crater, a 28-mile-wide...
It's worth noting that organic molecules can be created by processes not related to life as we know it, and thus aren't direct evidence of life.
Saved you a click.
Naturally, organic simply means carbon is present in the (non-metal) structure. Generally carbon-carbon, carbon-hydrogen, and a few other bond-types are considered organic. Many articles prey on people's misunderstanding of this in order to craft a good headline, since "carbon-based material" doesn't sound as exciting as "organic material".
And when they say it "be created by processes not related to life as we know it" they should also probably mention that it can be created in the absence of any life at all; since if that weren't true then it would in fact be direct evidence of life.
Thank you. This is exactly why I tended to go right to the comments in Reddit, because inevitably an "expert" would comment on why the article headline was bullshit (an "expert" can be somebody with experience, a PhD, or just somebody who actually read the article). It's so annoying how the news gets framed in order to increase the number of clicks on a page.
Funny how that's the most important part and it's not in the headline.
Almost like they know what they're doing and don't care because it makes them more money.
Writers always know that "organic" will be misinterpreted by the public, and do it anyway, hiding behind "technically correct". Personally, I think avoiding creating more misunderstandings about science and space exploration outweighs any "technically correct" bullshit. Stop intentionally hurting public understanding for clicks.
Basically me: Organic? So does that mean signs of life I wonder? Better read the article
While I'm clicking on the link I realize that if they actually found evidence for life they would 100% lead with that in their headline. So I close the article tab again immediately but they got their page visit, so mission accomplished I guess?
While I agree with your main gist, I actually think this overall creates less misunderstanding than more; at least, and probably solely, with respect to what organic means. Because people read that headline and think 'z0mg life discovered on mars' and then one of a few things may happen which leads them to realize that organic != organism. Though some of those 'few things' may include temporarily spreading their incorrect interpretation to others, I believe even a slightly intelligent person will realize that they may have wrong information when this finding doesn't end up as front page news and 'breaking news' segments around the world.
So at least in that respect, this kind of journalism constantly teaches and reminds people that organic doesn't mean life. Though, ultimately, I still dislike it as much as the next guy.
this kind of journalism constantly teaches and reminds people that organic doesn’t mean life.
Except... it doesn't. That's just a dreamy hypothetical way that it might manifest, but that doesn't match reality. It misinforms. The end.
"So far, the only Martian rocks we've ever been able to study on Earth have been meteorites. Getting our hands on intact Mars rocks, carefully stored and protected from contamination, will be invaluable to planetary science," said Joseph Razzell Hollis, a postdoctoral fellow at London's Natural History Museum.
Hollis is also an author on a research paper recently published in the journal Nature titled "Diverse organic-mineral associations in Jezero crater, Mars."
I’m confused: is this article just summarizing Hollis’s paper, or is this a new discovery and they asked Hollis to comment because he’d previously written a relevant paper?
I am still betting we won't find life there.
Mars had a wet past. If there had been life in that wet past it would have taken over the entire planet. A process we don't see evidence for but should.
Which means that either life is rare or life on Mars was unlike life on earth. Of the two, the former requires less assumptions. The default is no life. The default is not life that is radically different than earth life.
Or, the window of habitability on Mars was much shorter than on Earth, and there just wasn't time for complex, multicellular life to evolve. On Earth, life existed for billions of years before multicellular critters popped up. I think one day, a rover is going to turn over the right rock and we'll see a little smudge of fossilized algal mat. But I am an optimist.
If we are using steps as a progress guide then we are still about 1,000 km from little green men visiting earth.
Man I wish NASA (or some private pioneer) would send an archeology team (human or robot) to find evidence of previous life. Like dinosaurs or something. If you discovered that, you'd be immortal.
It is said men have two (2) deaths. The first is physical. The second is when your influence in the world is no longer felt and your name has been spoken for the very last time.
As the great author Terry Pratchet has proclaimed, "No one is actually dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away..."
So it is in that vein in which my use of the word "immortal" was intended. Immortal was used in a purposefully exaggerated way to impress upon the reader the great significance and glory of the discoverer in making such a discovery.
My comment was intended in a poetic light, rather than logically or scientifically.