Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
I'm not a scientist, but I think the question you're asking is the question they're seeking to answer by searching for life in these places. There isn't an assumption that if it had liquid water it may have had life (that statement alone inherently isn't an assumption), they are searching for any evidence of life on Mars because A) it's the closest and easiest planet to get to and B) while we know in what conditions life on Earth arose, we can't be sure the same conditions are necessary somewhere else, for life that possibly may not be carbon based.
We don't know the conditions that life arose in on Earth. There are multiple hypotheses, but there is no conclusive evidence, and we certainly cannot reproduce life from the building blocks yet.
Yes, but, given that most of the fossils of archaic life was found where the primordial soup might have been present, that for the moment is the hypothesis with better support.
Though odds are highest for carbon-based, simple from it's abundance.
Trouble is that between science and what we get from the media there is a big difference. In science the assumption is not there. But when you see the media reports about Mars or the future planned missions to Europa the assumption is there, blunt and with no attempts to justify it.