Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

eppur_se_muova

(42,614 posts)
1. Breakdown products -- the same products can come from many different sources.
Thu May 28, 2026, 12:24 AM
Thursday
What the TMAH dissolved and released included nitrogen-bearing organic compounds, sulfur-bearing molecules including benzothiophene — previously found in meteorites and asteroids — and a range of carbon-containing structures that, on Earth, are associated with the chemistry of living systems. Among them was a molecule structurally similar to precursors of DNA. The results were verified on Earth by exposing a piece of the Murchison meteorite, a well-studied 4-billion-year-old rock containing organic chemistry, to the same TMAH process. It produced similar breakdown products, including benzothiophene, lending confidence to the Martian readings.


I hope they're more convincing than benzothiophene. Heat almost any hydrocarbon with sulfur hot enough, and you'll get some benzothiphoene. It doesn't mean benzothiophene, or even the branched eight-carbon skeleton of benzothiophen, was present in the sample. It means there were enough carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur atoms that when you cooked them all up and allowed them to re-form into stable molecules, the very stable benzothiophen was some of what resulted. I hope people appreciate what very indirect evidence this is -- the same results could have come from an endless variety of starting points.

Seven of the molecules had never been confirmed on Mars before.


They still haven't. We have only confirmed that Mars contains materials that, forced to decompose and recombine, can form these materials. This is a completely separate question from whether these compounds were originally present, and they almost certainly weren't.

Scientists who search desperately for life where it's not known to exist sometimes seem to be on a religious crusade, and every sign from above only confirms their faith. Maybe someday they'll prove right in one particular instance, but they'll want you to forget all the other unsupported claims that preceded it.

Recommendations

3 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»NASA's Curiosity rover ha...»Reply #1