*****************************************
<The unexpected discovery of organisms buried underneath a dreary stretch of Antarctic desert has bolstered hopes that life could exist in similar conditions on Mars, scientists announced this week.

Pure media-hype.

Life has to start before it can exist, and we have to find it before it can be accepted. We already know that life is hardy. It has to be, otherwise it cannot survive -- anywhere -- for a few billion years.

Fiding Earth life on Earth is hitting the news stands now. I think there's a real problem with the media if this is the best they can do.

How about if they go on about how life was discovered underneath a dreary stretch of Antarctic desert, therefore we could likely survive living on Mars?

Dan

**********************************************************************

This is coming from the scientists who did the research, not the media. The sentence you quoted is perfectly fine. It's a headline like "New microbes suggest life on Mars" that is misleading.

The key question of life on Mars is the question of liquid water, which has led to NASA's follow the water strategy. If it is true that you have microbes surviving at below zero temperatures in Antarctica on water kept liquid by high salt content, then that raises the possibility it could happen on Mars. That is what the sentence you quoted says and that is the point of the article.
You seem to have the idea that anyone *else* reading the article would get the idea it means "new microbes prove life exists on Mars!" You don't read it that way. There's no reason to presume others read it that way.

Bob Clark