If we ever confirm life on Mars (or anywhere else for that matter), I really hope we don't find that it shares a common ancestor with life on Earth. Panspermia is cool, but two instances of abiogenesis in a single solar system? That is huge.
Here's to hoping it's life, but not as we know it.
>"I really hope we don't find that it shares a common ancestor with life on Earth". Could you give a definition here, please?
I cannot respond to you directly, but sure. When I say I hope there is not a "common ancestor" I mean that I hope life on Earth and life anywhere else we may discover it do not have "common descent" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent). That is strongly believed to be the case with all life we have encountered so far. This is also a pretty good wikipedia page about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor
For plants to be on Mars, either A) the immeasurably chaotic process of evolution yielded carbon-based, cellular, stationary, metabolizing, photosynthetic, reproductive things on two planets with vastly different geological and climatic histories, or B) Earth-borne plant material, which has evolved to the point that it can only produce a viable organism in certain rather specific environmental niches on its home planet, has somehow reached a foreign planet and developed into a more-or-less thriving colony of vegetation upon it.
We obviously are operating with an extremely limited dataset (currently of size "1"), but there are a few things we can look at that may tell us something about the likelihood of particular characteristics evolving.
We know that flight has evolved on Earth at least four completely distinct times (no common flying ancestors): birds, bats, bugs, and pterosaurs. The basics of eyes are thought to share a common ancestor, but complex image forming eyes are thought to have evolved dozens of times.
I'm sure there are many better examples; I have only studied biology in my spare time as an adult, so maybe a biologist can step in.
The basic idea though is that since the driving force behind the change is not random certain general ideas are likely to keep on popping up over time. Now, are the building blocks likely to be the same? Hard to say, the chemistry for carbon based life works particularly well, but there are hypothetical alternatives. I can't speak to which is more likely than the other.
The question of "how likely is this" is really quite involved.
