Life on Mars

[MarcUK]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4295475.stm

If in subsequent years, we confirm a primitive source of life on mars, should we just leave it alone and never go there again? or should we study it, but leave it to its own devices, or should we try to accelerate the process as much as possible to see what we get?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by MarcUK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4295475.stm

If in subsequent years, we confirm a primitive source of life on mars, should we just leave it alone and never go there again? or should we study it, but leave it to its own devices, or should we try to accelerate the process as much as possible to see what we get?
?

We should avoid exterminating it, but like we do with untold numbers of organisms on earth, studying it will provide insights and possibly even therapeutics...

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4295475.stm

If in subsequent years, we confirm a primitive source of life on mars, should we just leave it alone and never go there again? or should we study it, but leave it to its own devices, or should we try to accelerate the process as much as possible to see what we get?

We should try to convert it to fundamentalist Christianity.

How is this PO material btw ?

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by segovius
We should try to convert it to fundamentalist Christianity.

How is this PO material btw ?

We could have registered the Martian Slime to vote Democratic. Absentee ballots from Mars for John Kerry could have saved the day.

There; NOW this is PO material.

BTW, anyone interested in the fact that "Buzz" is building about Life On Mars and the fact that a remake of 'War of the Worlds' is immenent?

(Martian Life indeed! Tin-Foil-Hat-Wearing Bastards!)

((I'd further say that any plans for a sample-return mission to Mars should be put on hold and that all missions for the foreseeable future should be one way.))

Aries 1B

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius

How is this PO material btw ?

Actually I was hoping for a response from the pro-lifers :D

Ok, I just naturally post in PO because thats where i usually am, it can be moved if a mod thinks so.

[MarcUK]

The moralist in me says if we discover life on Mars, we should leave it alone, and never go there again. Ever.

The scientist in me says we should examine it closely to further understand, but taking very careful precautions to ensure we don't mess with it, or accidently introduce biological systems on earth that might interfere with it.

The evil bastard in me says we should do everything we can to assist it in its evolution, say for instance we discovered that we could speed up its progress by increasing the temperature of Mars by 10deg, we should do it.

[Powerdoc]

I say that we should teach our moral value to martians amino acids. Life canno't prosper without moral value.

[hardeeharhar]

There is an implicit assumption here that it won't kill us first.

[Kishan]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
There is an implicit assumption here that it won't kill us first.

For a life form to be harmful to our bodies in a pathogenetic sort of way, it would have had to evolve along side us. There is no reason to suspect that an organism which has never seen a human body would have the capability to overcome the human body's formidable ability to defend itself against non-self.

I would hope that if such life were to be discovered, it would be brought back here to earth or to the international space station and be studied. The question I would be curious to answer would be, "Does all life have to be based on the same architecture?" Who knows what new directions biologic science could go if it were to stumble across life built on a totally different plan than that found here on earth.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Kishan
For a life form to be harmful to our bodies in a pathogenetic sort of way, it would have had to evolve along side us. There is no reason to suspect that an organism which has never seen a human body would have the capability to overcome the human body's formidable ability to defend itself against non-self.

I would hope that if such life were to be discovered, it would be brought back here to earth or to the international space station and be studied. The question I would be curious to answer would be, "Does all life have to be based on the same architecture?" Who knows what new directions biologic science could go if it were to stumble across life built on a totally different plan than that found here on earth.

I disagree with part a. We have evolved defenses along side that which we contact. That is, evolution went both ways. Something utterly foreign could be benign, but there is no reason to assume that it is going to be. The particular evolutionary history of our immune system development is rooted on earth, in the same way that current organisms pathogenicity is rooted on earth. For all we know, there could be organisms that are completely undetectable to our immune system simply because we did not get challenged with them during our evolution.

That and pathogenicity and the genes for it in microbes seem to stem from one strange mother...

[curiousuburb]

Of course, there are those who might argue the theory of Panspermia, where bits blasted off of Mars might have carried microbial or bacterial life forms to Earth... there are some who suggest that we are in fact all derived from an originally Martian life form... in which case, the potential for contamination might be considerably higher than if we were discrete planetary evolutions with no cross-pollinating life forms further back in evolutionary history.

The recent discovery of extreme life forms in subsurface rock below the ocean seems to suggest that early proto-life might be much hardier than we used to imagine, and might have 'relatives' in subsurface lifeforms even today on Mars.

[e1618978]

The death of any life on mars is unavoidable - we need that land. The best thing we can do is save DNA samples and perhaps living specimins.

The current plan, as I understand it, is:

1) Crash Phobos and Demios into the surface (to heat the planet, and also minimise the atmospheric thinning effect of the moons).

2. Add arisols, and other greenhouse gases to atmosphere

3. When the planet heats up enough to form water clouds and a CO2 atmosphere, add blue-green algae and various plant seeds.

4) Wait.

Just the transition to an oxygeon atmosphere will kill everything, just as it did on Earth (the evolution of blue-green algae caused a massive die-off of other speces due to O2 poisoning).

Bill Gates can already afford to do this, I don't know what he is waiting for...

[groverat]

Originally posted by segovius
We should try to convert it to fundamentalist Christianity.

I laughed quite heartily at this because it is so true. You know there is some doe-eyed housewife in middle America who will think "I wonder if they're saved."

Oh God I just can't stop laughing at this mental image :lol: :lol: :lol:

How is this PO material btw ?

It's going to end up PO material, it was wise to start it here instead of waiting for me to get pissed off and move it.

[groverat]

I agree completely with e#.
And if he's joking I still think we should try to make it happen.

[Outsider]

Does Mars have enough gravity to keep an atmosphere with enough pressure to sustain earth life?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Outsider
Does Mars have enough gravity to keep an atmosphere with enough pressure to sustain earth life?

Not human life. bacteria, possibly.

[e1618978]

I wasn't joking, here are a couple sites:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm
http://www.marssociety.org/

For those that want to save the martian life, remember what happend to Australia when rabbits were introduced - if Earth accidentally gets infected with martian bacteria, it could be pretty nasty. We have to kill everything we find until we are a lot more biologically savvy than we currently are.

Also, who do you think will save up enough money to get to mars first, the real-estate developers or PETA?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
I wasn't joking, here are a couple sites:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm
http://www.marssociety.org/

For those that want to save the martian life, remember what happend to Australia when rabbits were introduced - if Earth accidentally gets infected with martian bacteria, it could be pretty nasty. We have to kill everything we find until we are a lot more biologically savvy than we currently are.

Also, who do you think will save up enough money to get to mars first, the real-estate developers or PETA?

Huh? We are pretty damn biologically savvy, my friend.

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
try to accelerate the process


....what "process" are we talking about?

I think you are putting as many assumptions that "life" will evolve on Mars as you do in this "process". Idiots at NASA are blowing money that should be going into deep space probes and telescopes on duplicate missions to Mars to find "life" -- this is stupid.

Taking this idiocy -- that we have life here on Earth, so Mars will have it too -- to it's logical conclusion, we should have "life" in every square inch of the universe. The odds of "life" "evolving" on Earth are completley improbable. It is simply not rational to expect this to happen on the next planet over.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
....what "process" are we talking about?

I think you are putting as many assumptions that "life" will evolve on Mars as you do in this "process". Idiots at NASA are blowing money that should be going into deep space probes and telescopes on duplicate missions to Mars to find "life" -- this is stupid.

Taking this idiocy -- that we have life here on Earth, so Mars will have it too -- to it's logical conclusion, we should have "life" in every square inch of the universe. The odds of "life" "evolving" on Earth are completley improbable. It is simply not rational to expect this to happen on the next planet over.

Here we go. It is an assumption that we are special. If we find life on mars will you shut the fuck up?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Huh? We are pretty damn biologically savvy, my friend.

We stopped smallpox, but we are not good enough to stop every new bacteria from causing massive problems. I have only grade 11 biology (and from your previous posts, I assume you have more than that), but it seems like we could easily be wiped out.

What happens if we get a new bacteria that lives in our lymph system like typhoid - and is also easily transmitted, immune to antibiotics, and kills you after 10 years? We would be screwed, and 99% of humanity would die.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
I say that we should teach our moral value to martians amino acids. Life canno't prosper without moral value.

Bacteria reproduce through asexual means, so they are going to hell no matter what. Stop touching yourself - sinners! :D

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
We stopped smallpox, but we are not good enough to stop every new bacteria from causing massive problems. I have only grade 11 biology (and from your previous posts, I assume you have more than that), but it seems like we could easily be wiped out.

What happens if we get a new bacteria that lives in our lymph system like typhoid - and is also easily transmitted, immune to antibiotics, and kills you after 10 years? We would be screwed, and 99% of humanity would die.

I am a scientist. We could be wiped out, which is why we should be careful about bringing anything back, but that doesn't mean we will be. The organisms that may be on Mars could provide valuable insight into our existence/biology as well as be a source for new therapeutics. The knowledge gained is worth the risk that we may find a new plague. Care will need to be taken, of course, to avoid it.

[Powerdoc]

Life on Mars could exist outside DNA. It would be a great discovery to see a life form based on something different than the DNA or RNA code.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by e1618978
Bacteria reproduce through asexual means, so they are going to hell no matter what. Stop touching yourself - sinners! :D

Wrong : asexual reproduction is clean. Sexuality is disguting. Bacteria will go to paradise at the sole condtion that they recocnize their saviors. :p

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
....what "process" are we talking about?

I think you are putting as many assumptions that "life" will evolve on Mars as you do in this "process". Idiots at NASA are blowing money that should be going into deep space probes and telescopes on duplicate missions to Mars to find "life" -- this is stupid.

Taking this idiocy -- that we have life here on Earth, so Mars will have it too -- to it's logical conclusion, we should have "life" in every square inch of the universe. The odds of "life" "evolving" on Earth are completley improbable. It is simply not rational to expect this to happen on the next planet over.

I'm talking about that bedrock of scientific pinnacle - the big E. However as someone has pointed out, it does not necessarily have to be based on DNA or RNA, assuming that panspermia didn't take place, there is no reason to assume that life on 2 isolated bodies would have formulated the same way.

The idiocy is that the life on Earth is too busy preching that mythical heroes can save us, and blowing the shit out of itself because someone elses hero is better than yours, when the money could be spent researching the solar system to find out how it might have happened - for REAL. And the chance of life evolving on Earth is 1/1 as evidenced by the fact that I am here.

What are you going to say, if, and it is still a big IF life is discovered on Mars? You're shitting yourself already - as can be deemed from your reply, that you are not as special as you'd like to believe, even though there is no concrete reason to suspect it is a lifeform causing these gases.

I'd start rethinking your allegience to this president if I were you, - Isn't he the one who proposes the biggest expidition to Mars EVER. :D

[johnq]

DMZ's close-minded, "oppose everything that threatens my dogma", insistence that life of Mars is silly, is the final straw for me.

I'm really hoping that the plan to crash Phobos and Demios into Mars triggers a fresh Panspermic event that introduces the Martian life into our ecosystem and brings about the extinction of the entire human race.

One can dream, can't one?

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
I'm talking about that bedrock of scientific pinnacle - the big E. However as someone has pointed out, it does not necessarily have to be based on DNA or RNA, assuming that panspermia didn't take place, there is no reason to assume that life on 2 isolated bodies would have formulated the same way.

The idiocy is that the life on Earth is too busy preching that mythical heroes can save us, and blowing the shit out of itself because someone elses hero is better than yours, when the money could be spent researching the solar system to find out how it might have happened - for REAL. And the chance of life evolving on Earth is 1/1 as evidenced by the fact that I am here.

What are you going to say, if, and it is still a big IF life is discovered on Mars? You're shitting yourself already - as can be deemed from your reply, that you are not as special as you'd like to believe, even though there is no concrete reason to suspect it is a lifeform causing these gases.

I'd start rethinking your allegience to this president if I were you, - Isn't he the one who proposes the biggest expidition to Mars EVER. :D

You used the word "process"....evolution is the theory that uses features it cannot account for, predict, or explain. What inexplicable "process" are we talking about? How do you put unrelated particulars that interact on a purely chaotic basis, on a production path that, by definition, doesn't exist?

[johnq]

Originally posted by MarcUK
I'd start rethinking your allegience to this president if I were you, - Isn't he the one who proposes the biggest expidition to Mars EVER. :D

Remember, Bush and co. are as Christian/religious as Bin Laden/AQ are (not the slightest bit).

Where there's water, there's life; where there's life, there's oil. That's his only interest. That and real estate. Las Vegas 2 anyone?

Bush wouldn't give a frig about any faith-shaking discoveries of life found elsewhere.

Besides, DMZ-types would just say any Martian life found was seeded from Earth through God-induced-Panspermia. :rolleyes: Jesus über alles.

[crazychester]

You've just made me realize I don't have Bowie's "Life on Mars" loaded into iTunes MarkUK. Thanks. I knew you'd say something relevant sooner or later. :p

BTW e# we got our own back on the rabbits. Have virus, will annihilate.

Bye bye bunny, bye bye..........

[e1618978]

Originally posted by crazychester
You've just made me realize I don't have Bowie's "Life on Mars" loaded into iTunes MarkUK. Thanks. I knew you'd say something relevant sooner or later. :p

BTW e# we got our own back on the rabbits. Have virus, will annihilate.

Bye bye bunny, bye bye..........

I don't have any Bowie music in my iTunes - how could I have missed something like that? I have most of the Bowie albums on LP, but now I need to hunt for the CD versions to load into iTunes.

I thought that the virus killed 99% of the rabbits, and now the resistant 1% were starting to breed up to capacity. We need some rabbit hunting robots (maybe they could use decomposing rabbit meat at a fuel source...)

[crazychester]

Originally posted by e1618978
I thought that the virus killed 99% of the rabbits, and now the resistant 1% were starting to breed up to capacity. We need some rabbit hunting robots (maybe they could use decomposing rabbit meat at a fuel source...) You sound like you're talking about myxomatosis. Now we're using the calicivirus on them. According to Rabbit News (http://www.csiro.au/communication/rabbits/rabbits.htm) it's been very successful in Central Oz. Less so in higher rainfall areas. But then there are less of the little blighters in those areas. I know all I've seen around my area of late is hares and they're not a problem because they don't breed like....well....rabbits. (I don't think they live in burrows either).

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by crazychester
You sound like you're talking about myxomatosis. Now we're using the calicivirus on them. According to Rabbit News (http://www.csiro.au/communication/rabbits/rabbits.htm) it's been very successful in Central Oz. Less so in higher rainfall areas. But then there are less of the little blighters in those areas. I know all I've seen around my area of late is hares and they're not a problem because they don't breed like....well....rabbits. (I don't think they live in burrows either).

I have heard this one before: I think you are talking about penicillin, we now use ampicillin, oops, I mean amoxicillin, I mean...

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I have heard this one before: I think you are talking about penicillin, we now use ampicillin, oops, I mean amoxicillin, I mean...

Except that since the life cycle on rabbits is a lot longer than the life cycle on bacteria, we need new antibiotics a lot more often than they need new viruses.

http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00128/en/rabbits/mc.htm

Looks like they need a new dose every 40 years - 40 years from now we will be able to engineer some pretty cool viruses. In fact, I bet we can custom design new vector organisms.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by e1618978
Except that since the life cycle on rabbits is a lot longer than the life cycle on bacteria, we need new antibiotics a lot more often than they need new viruses.

http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00128/en/rabbits/mc.htm

Looks like they need a new dose every 40 years - 40 years from now we will be able to engineer some pretty cool viruses. In fact, I bet we can custom design new vector organisms.

True enough...

[johnq]

Originally posted by e1618978
Looks like they need a new dose every 40 years - 40 years from now we will be able to engineer some pretty cool viruses. In fact, I bet we can custom design new vector organisms.

Okay, now please go add vector organisms to wikipedia so I know what the frack you're talking about :D (I googled, I get it):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vector_Organism&action=edit

[e1618978]

So here is my plan:

1. Save up $50 billion
2. Make space elevator
3. Orbital rail guns to shoot supplies to mars
4. Orbital factory to create those circular space stations from the 2001 movie
5. Send terraforming crews to mars on a bunch of movable space stations (gardens in the space stations replenish oxygeon and supply food).
6. Terraform mars
7. Change name to "Ming the Merciless"
8. Kill flash gordon, and marry his girlfriend.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
You used the word "process"....evolution is the theory that uses features it cannot account for, predict, or explain. What inexplicable "process" are we talking about? How do you put unrelated particulars that interact on a purely chaotic basis, on a production path that, by definition, doesn't exist?

hehe, this coming form a guy that admits he's never studied Evolution outside of books written by the Creationist community.

You know dmz, I know for a fact that you will never accept anything outside your little dogma of mythology, so while arguing with you on the surface of things seems like a wasted exercise - you are a perfect tool for me to utilize, to clearly demonstrate to people sitting on the fence just how stupid, backwards, and naive the fundamentalist Christian community really is.

So in effect, you are acting as an antichrist, by distorting the message of Christ and the Bible into such stupid reductionist desires to try to prove spiritual faith by scientific means, people read you and see that Christianity as proposed by you is nothing but an illogical, militant, backward religion of the 4th Century. And this is turning people away from Jesus. Which might be a shame, because Jesus does have some very good things to teach us - if we understand them for what they are.

If I were Satan, if I wanted to turn people away from the Bible, I would take the stories of the bible, and talk them up so much into the stratosphere, make them so believable, make them offer so much, that when the truth did finally come out and it wasn't as great as people believed, that they would turn away from Christ altogether, because he didn't offer the false promises that Satan talked them up to be.

Do you get it yet? There are a million and one lies in Creationist literature about what the theory of Evolution is and is not. Creationists don't have the integrity to cross research their texts, and the people who write them are deliberately propogating lies supposedly because "it is OK to tell lies if they lead to God" -Luther. What happens when these lies are found out? Satan gets his way. congrats dmz, you are a tool of satan

As for your question "How do you put unrelated particulars that interact on a purely chaotic basis, on a production path that..."

If you ever manage to find those little thing called honesty and integrity, and go read Evolution as written by the scientific community, you will find the answer to that question, realise the lies projected in the wording of that question, and realise the stupidity of your allegience to Satan.

Let me give you a clear example - I used to be what has recently been termed "Apatheistic" - not believing in Jesus, but not really caring enough to ever find out. I once asked a question about Quantum Mechanics on this board. I got a reply from a Creationist. Said Creationist pissed me off a bit, but asked me for a bit of my time, because he promised me the truth. I gave a bit of my time, quite a few years actually, and I went away and found out that at the root of every Creationist claim about evolution[b] was a blatant lie, deception or misrepresentation of the theory. Not stopping there, I went away, and tried to find out if there was any truth in the biblical account. But then I found out that there was nothing but [b]lies, deceptions and misrepresentations in the biblical account. SO even if somewhere in the perversions of Christianity there is any truth in believing that Jesus can save me, you and others have done a very good job in convincing me that a million lies do not lead to God. Congratulations dmz et all, from your POV, you have guaranteed me a place in hell.

Fortunately, common sense and rational thinking have allowed me to realise that there is some value in studying the message of Jesus, and Osiris, Mithra, Dionysus, and at the moment, the Qur'an. So while I am still going to hell, at least I wont be going to hell (like you) with my head up my ass.

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by Outsider
Does Mars have enough gravity to keep an atmosphere with enough pressure to sustain earth life?

I beleive, one hypothesis is that Mars was warmer and wetter than today with a thicker atmosphere (which helps with the warmer wetter part), but then over time the atmosphere was lost due to insufficinet gravity. This resulted in the cold dry place Mars is today. I'm not sure if this view is still the most popular today, I've heard some suggest that Mars may not have been that warm or wet ever. As we can see with all the new findings coming in, we still have a lot to learn. The point is, however, that there is enough gravity to hold an atmosphere for a while (geological time scale "a while") but not for billions of years. If we could introduce an atmosphere it would hold for some time.

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by MarcUK
.... However as someone has pointed out, it does not necessarily have to be based on DNA or RNA, assuming that panspermia didn't take place, there is no reason to assume that life on 2 isolated bodies would have formulated the same way.
... And the chance of life evolving on Earth is 1/1 as evidenced by the fact that I am here.


This really is the big question. Estimating the potential for life throughout our galaxy or the Universe in general has always been difficult based on our n = 1 (us). These estimates have always been based on the likelihood for the presence of liquid water.

To find life on another planet would add greatly to our understanding of the conditions under which life can evolve and survive.

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
hehe, this coming form a guy that admits he's never studied Evolution outside of books written by the Creationist community.

You know dmz, I know for a fact that you will never accept anything outside your little dogma of mythology, so while arguing with you on the surface of things seems like a wasted exercise - you are a perfect tool for me to utilize, to clearly demonstrate to people sitting on the fence just how stupid, backwards, and naive the fundamentalist Christian community really is.

So in effect, you are acting as an antichrist, by distorting the message of Christ and the Bible into such stupid reductionist desires to try to prove spiritual faith by scientific means, people read you and see that Christianity as proposed by you is nothing but an illogical, militant, backward religion of the 4th Century. And this is turning people away from Jesus. Which might be a shame, because Jesus does have some very good things to teach us - if we understand them for what they are.

If I were Satan, if I wanted to turn people away from the Bible, I would take the stories of the bible, and talk them up so much into the stratosphere, make them so believable, make them offer so much, that when the truth did finally come out and it wasn't as great as people believed, that they would turn away from Christ altogether, because he didn't offer the false promises that Satan talked them up to be.

Do you get it yet? There are a million and one lies in Creationist literature about what the theory of Evolution is and is not. Creationists don't have the integrity to cross research their texts, and the people who write them are deliberately propogating lies supposedly because "it is OK to tell lies if they lead to God" -Luther. What happens when these lies are found out? Satan gets his way. congrats dmz, you are a tool of satan

As for your question "How do you put unrelated particulars that interact on a purely chaotic basis, on a production path that..."

If you ever manage to find those little thing called honesty and integrity, and go read Evolution as written by the scientific community, you will find the answer to that question, realise the lies projected in the wording of that question, and realise the stupidity of your allegience to Satan.

Let me give you a clear example - I used to be what has recently been termed "Apatheistic" - not believing in Jesus, but not really caring enough to ever find out. I once asked a question about Quantum Mechanics on this board. I got a reply from a Creationist. Said Creationist pissed me off a bit, but asked me for a bit of my time, because he promised me the truth. I gave a bit of my time, quite a few years actually, and I went away and found out that at the root of every Creationist claim about evolution[b] was a blatant lie, deception or misrepresentation of the theory. Not stopping there, I went away, and tried to find out if there was any truth in the biblical account. But then I found out that there was nothing but [b]lies, deceptions and misrepresentations in the biblical account. SO even if somewhere in the perversions of Christianity there is any truth in believing that Jesus can save me, you and others have done a very good job in convincing me that a million lies do not lead to God. Congratulations dmz et all, from your POV, you have guaranteed me a place in hell.

Fortunately, common sense and rational thinking have allowed me to realise that there is some value in studying the message of Jesus, and Osiris, Mithra, Dionysus, and at the moment, the Qur'an. So while I am still going to hell, at least I wont be going to hell (like you) with my head up my ass.


Oh, Lighten Up!

You are not using the same terms as the scientists themselves. Chance, RANDOM --- COMPLETELY RANDOM events are at the basis of Evolution.

You used the word "process", as in "speed up the process", --- this is an open-ended process, one without a defined endpoint. There is nothing to speed up since there is no guarantee of any outcome.

On top of this, you have "surveyed" a tiny fraction of a fraction, of a fraction of the known universe, and seem to expect this open-ended "process" to be occuring at an incidence that is not rational.

My point in all this, is that you don't seem to be able to get away from the notion of "Creation" and that you have --irrationally-- ascribed the creative onus, or potentiallity to Chaos. You are compounding that error by assuming that this Chaos is loaded with potentiallity to the point of having the tendency of spontaneously generating life -- to the point of believing it will generate life whereever you look. This is a denial of the science of statistics and actually is starting to sound more and more like a metaphysical statment, than a "total reliance on science" --- which is what you seem to claim.

[Carson O'Genic]

Well, if there is life on Mars then I predict there will be more than one kind. If life never got past the single stage level, it dtill could mean that all kinds of single cell speicies evolved. Afterall, there are more than a few kinds of bacteria on our planet. One of the characteristics of life is that that it builds ecosystems. Hard to imagine you have the same bugs dividing for billions of years without some bugs coming up with the idea of eating the other bugs rather than the rocks. Then you get the bugs learning to live in places that the killer bugs can't stand so they don't get eaten, but tha tonly lasts so long before...you get the idea.

It would be sooo coool to if there was life there today.

My only problem with extant life is that the whole human interaction and colonization efforts become much more mired in ethics, safety, politics and technical issues. It would all be easier if it were a dead planet for us have our way with. It's harder to screw up a dead planet compared to living one.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
Oh, Lighten Up!
mmmmkay, i've lightened up. Jesus shines through my window ;)


You are not using the same terms as the scientists themselves. Chance, RANDOM --- COMPLETELY RANDOM events are at the basis of Evolution.

yep, but why stop there because it sounds good to you? oh right, i get it.


You used the word "process", as in "speed up the process", --- this is an open-ended process, one without a defined endpoint. There is nothing to speed up since there is no guarantee of any outcome.

well, I dont think I need to give a detailed account of the whole theory of evolution to make the point. I think every sane person understood that 'process' refered to the whole mechanism that evolution uses, and not ignored the parts of it that make you have to change your underwear.

the last sentance of that block . WTF are you trying to say?


On top of this, you have "surveyed" a tiny fraction of a fraction, of a fraction of the known universe, and seem to expect this open-ended "process" to be occuring at an incidence that is not rational.

true, and dont forget it was me who said it is still a pretty big "IF" so your critique is all wrong. But there is reason to believe that there could be life on Mars, so we should check it out. Remind me if I start to claim there is a chance of life on the moon.


My point in all this, is that you don't seem to be able to get away from the notion of "Creation" and that you have --irrationally-- ascribed the creative onus, or potentiallity to Chaos. You are compounding that error by assuming that this Chaos is loaded with potentiallity to the point of having the tendency of spontaneously generating life -- to the point of believing it will generate life whereever you look. This is a denial of the science of statistics and actually is starting to sound more and more like a metaphysical statment, than a "total reliance on science" --- which is what you seem to claim. [/B]

see, this is where you just do not understand the mechanisms of Evolution, or more likely you are intentionally misrepresenting it. This is why I keep charging you and your mates as pathological liars. It really is not difficult to find out how evolution works. And to keep coming back here and claiming the same stupid arguments month after month, after it has been explained to you time after time - I just don't understand where you get off?

I dont want an answer for above, just answer me this.
Q. What does God do to people who intentionally tell lies?

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
you are intentionally misrepresenting it.[/B]

am not
am not:p

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
am not
am not:p

dmz, I don't think for one minute that you are not a smart enough guy to not understand how it works. You even allude to knowing how it works with your replies, I know you don't accept Evolution, that's OK, we can argue here for the rest of our lives, fine, BUT WHY LIE?

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
dmz, I don't think for one minute that you are not a smart enough guy to not understand how it works. You even allude to knowing how it works with your replies, I know you don't accept Evolution, that's OK, we can argue here for the rest of our lives, fine, BUT WHY LIE?


It's a chaotic process!!

ataxia, ballup, clutter, disarray, disorder, huddle, muddle, snarl, topsyturviness

It, "came out alright" for you guys, but there CAN"T be either a motive or goal, that would imply intelligence and guidance.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
but there CAN"T be either a motive or goal, that would imply intelligence and guidance.

but thats what the theory states you fool.

And adress the lying question please.

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
You are not using the same terms as the scientists themselves. Chance, RANDOM --- COMPLETELY RANDOM events are at the basis of Evolution.
And, like most creationists, as demonstrated by your ALL CAPS use of the phrase COMPLETELY RANDOM, you utterly misunderstand the role of random events in evolution.

It's completely possible for something to be a process, even a nearly 100% deterministic process, and for it to rely on random events.

Consider the "Monte Carlo" algorithm for computing the the value of pi. It's basically a way of throwing darts at a circle and counting how often you land inside the circle vs. outside:

1) set N to 0
2) set M to 0
3) Pick a random value for x between 0 to 1.
4) Pick a random value for y between 0 to 1.
5) Add 1 to N
6) If x^2 + y^2 < 1, add 1 to M. (In other words, check if the randomly picked point (x, y) inside of a unit circle, or outside but within a bounding square.)
7) Go back to step 3 for as many times as you have the patience to deal with.

Notice that the value of pi is not built into the algorithm in any way. Yet over time, the longer you loop the loop, the value 4*M/N converges on pi.

Evolution is nowhere nearly so directed as this algorithm, but it is FAR from being COMPLETELY random, despite being driven by random events. Evolution is a bounded stochastic process.

But please, don't let me stand in the way of you continuing to characterize evolution as being like "a tornado running through a junkyard producing a jet plane" -- I fully expect you to cling to that conception and not learn a thing.

[dmz]

...the root of evolution is randomness, NOW what happens to the features generated is a no brainer, natural selection would, of course put those features to good use.

What you guys are missing is the GENERATION of the features, which is a completely random "process". No matter how badly any creature could use any new feature, fur to keep warm, blood to give it's heart something to pump, or wings to escape predators, all the wanting in the world has to wait for the right CHANCE EVENT to produce the right feature at the right place at the right time. Each new feature is an accident no matter how badly it is needed.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
...the root of evolution is randomness, NOW what happens to the features generated is a no brainer, natural selection would, of course put those features to good use.

What you guys are missing is the GENERATION of the features, which is a completely random "process". No matter how badly any creature could use any new feature, fur to keep warm, blood to give it's heart something to pump, or wings to escape predators, all the wanting in the world has to wait for the right CHANCE EVENT to produce the right feature at the right place at the right time. Each new feature is an accident no matter how badly it is needed.

but thats what the theory says :???:

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
Each new feature is an accident no matter how badly it is needed.
And this is a problem because...?

[johnq]

Originally posted by dmz
It's a chaotic process!!

ataxia, ballup, clutter, disarray, disorder, huddle, muddle, snarl, topsyturviness

It, "came out alright" for you guys, but there CAN"T be either a motive or goal, that would imply intelligence and guidance.

Your understanding of "chaos" is flawed to say the least. You're lumping a dozen things together dishonestly or ignorantly.

You are the poster-child for why rigid, dogmatic thinking blinds one to sensing and testing and questioning. Instead you cling to lore, faith and obedience.

All you ever do is take advantage of science's open-ended self-questioning nature and use it as some kind of "gotcha!" that it is somehow flawed for not having concrete, dogmatic answers.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
No matter how badly any creature could use any new feature, fur to keep warm, blood to give it's heart something to pump, or wings to escape predators, all the wanting in the world has to wait for the right CHANCE EVENT to produce the right feature at the right place at the right time. Each new feature is an accident no matter how badly it is needed.
By George, I think he's got it!

[johnq]

Originally posted by shetline
Evolution is nowhere nearly so directed as this algorithm, but it is FAR from being COMPLETELY random, despite being driven by random events. Evolution is a bounded stochastic process.

But please, don't let me stand in the way of you continuing to characterize evolution as being like "a tornado running through a junkyard producing a jet plane" -- I fully expect you to cling to that conception and not learn a thing.

Thank GOD for people like shetline.

:D

[johnq]

Christians and science...what a combo. Want to eat meat even though your religion forbids it at certain times? Easy if you are part of the elite. Simply reclassify rabbit fetuses as fish.


Medieval French monks are credited with domesticating rabbits between A.D. 500 and 1000. The monks had very special needs, apart from a taste for rabbit meat. At a time in Catholic Europe when even lay people had more fast days on the calendar than not, fetal or newborn rabbits—long a delicacy—were deemed "fish" by the Church authorities. Thus, monks could eat quite well on "laurices."

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2000/4/arabbittale.cfm

[dmz]

Originally posted by shetline
And this is a problem because...?


....because in the end you develope the tendency to attach the NEED of a feature with the APPEARANCE of the feature. They are in no way, shape, or form, connected. It stops being a process at that disconnect, and starts being happenstance. Then the terminology among evolutionists gets sloppy, and before you can say "Richard Dawkins" you guys start using terms like "process" and "mechanism".

MarcUK's fuax puax of saying "speeding up the process" is a little like sitting down at a back-alley game of Craps, and "speeding up the process" of winning -- and winning at an uninmaginable rate, and then, while walking away rich, claiming you have found a "system" of beating the house's odds.

There was no system, it was entirely accidental and unrepeatable.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
....because in the end you develope the tendency to attach the NEED of a feature with the APPEARANCE of the feature.
No. The feature is a feature because it is succesful.

Originally posted by dmz
There was no system
Ah, here's the problem. This is factually incorrect.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
No. The feature is a feature because it is succesful.


Ah, here's the problem. This is factually incorrect.


There IS a system of USE --- I can't argue that at all --- but no system for generation.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
There IS a system of USE --- I can't argue that at all --- but no system for generation.

Yes there is.

[dmz]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Yes there is.

Yes, it's called chaos, Ghost in the machine, order from randomness, and if you ask me....

Nonsense!

[johnq]

Originally posted by dmz
Yes, it's called chaos, Ghost in the machine, order from randomness, and if you ask me....

Nonsense!

You really need to get out more and sit under a nice tree and read some more on science and nature, preferably not from pseudo-science Creationist tripe.

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
Yes, it's called chaos, Ghost in the machine, order from randomness, and if you ask me....

Nonsense!
It's called natural selection. And I don't think you have a clue what "chaos", in regards to mathematical and physical system, means.

Natural selection does not need goals. It does not need intelligently pondered strategies. It doesn't need ghosts trying to make things come out a certain way. Natural selection can be very brutal -- if the thing a creature needs to live doesn't exist, the creature simply dies.

You brought up fur as an example. Do you think that the only choices here are (A) fur is a wildly lucky accident on one hand or (B) an intelligent decision was reached that fur would be useful for survival?

If that's your understanding of natural selection, you have no understanding of natural selection.

[dmz]

Originally posted by shetline
It's called natural selection. And I don't think you have a clue what "chaos", in regards to mathematical and physical system, means.

Natural selection does not need goals. It does not need intelligently pondered strategies. It doesn't need ghosts trying to make things come out a certain way. Natural selection can be very brutal -- if the thing a creature needs to live doesn't exist, the creature simply dies.

You brought up fur as an example. Do you think that the only choices here are (A) fur is a wildly lucky accident on one hand or (B) an intelligent decision was reached that fur would be useful for survival?

If that's your understanding of natural selection, you have no understanding of natural selection.


Believe me, I have no touble with natural selection, none at all. An emergence of features, would HAVE to lead to a selection by nature, red in tooth and claw...

BUT

there is a veritable assembly line of features that are being added by an as to yet unkown process -- that is, for the time being noted as "chance", or "randomness".

This is the problem, you end up with a plan, but get there without one.

[curiousuburb]

Originally posted by shetline
It's called natural selection. And I don't think you have a clue what "chaos", in regards to mathematical and physical system, means.

Natural selection does not need goals. It does not need intelligently pondered strategies. It doesn't need ghosts trying to make things come out a certain way. Natural selection can be very brutal -- if the thing a creature needs to live doesn't exist, the creature simply dies.

You brought up fur as an example. Do you think that the only choices here are (A) fur is a wildly lucky accident on one hand or (B) an intelligent decision was reached that fur would be useful for survival?

If that's your understanding of natural selection, you have no understanding of natural selection.

There's a fur connection to evolutionary theory and human 'vestigial organs (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs.html)' (see number 8 )

Furry animals have an evolved reflex using what are known as erector pili to make their hairs stand on end so that the animal appears larger and more threatening to predators. Sometimes the bushier coat keeps them warmer.

Humans have erector pili as well (a vestigial evolutionary development that we don't need). When our hairs stand on end, we don't really look larger or more threatening, and if we need to be warmer, historically we tended to kill furry animals and just use their coats.

But the fact modern (relatively) hairless humans share erector pili with fur-bearing animals does suggest a common ancestor.

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
there is a veritable assembly line of features that are being added by an as to yet unkown process -- that is, for the time being noted as "chance", or "randomness".

This is the problem, you end up with a plan, but get there without one.
You end up with something that in some ways may, from a human perspective, resemble a deliberate plan, and perhaps post facto can be characterized as a plan -- such as a DNA pattern -- but similarity of results does not mean similarity of process. What rules out (besides, oh, things like terrible misunderstandings about thermodynamics) having plan-like outcomes from non-intelligent bounded stochastic processes?

And please, don't confuse the occassional loose and even anthropomorphic language used by evolutionists, when they talk about the way something is "designed", for instance, as some sort of tacit admission of intelligent design. As a software engineer, I constantly say things like "the application wants you to enter a password", and that phrasing in no way implies that I believe the computer or its software has an actual desire for the information in question.

[e1618978]

But the fact modern (relatively) hairless humans share erector pili with fur-bearing animals does suggest a common ancestor.

If you need more proof than the 97% of the DNA we share with our cousins - the Chimpanzee and pigmy chimpanzee.

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by shetline
And please, don't confuse the occassional loose and even anthropomorphic language used by evolutionists, when they talk about the way something is "designed", for instance, as some sort of tacit admission of intelligent design. As a software engineer, I constantly say things like "the application wants you to enter a password", and that phrasing in no way implies that I believe the computer or its software has an actual desire for the information in question.

Thank you, that needed to be said. It is very true. I've done it myself.

[dmz]

Originally posted by shetline
And please, don't confuse the occassional loose and even anthropomorphic language used by evolutionists....


I will try, but the underlying sentiment seems to be something of an 'elephant in the room'.


....and as for DNA percentages I believe we share 95ish% of our DNA with banana. That doesn't mean I'm in Kauai and hanging from a tree.

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by dmz
Believe me, I have no touble with natural selection, none at all. An emergence of features, would HAVE to lead to a selection by nature, red in tooth and claw...

BUT

there is a veritable assembly line of features that are being added by an as to yet unkown process -- that is, for the time being noted as "chance", or "randomness".

This is the problem, you end up with a plan, but get there without one.

You can understand that a person can take a few steps, but you have trouble seeing how people could migrate across most of the globe by walking.

Not every new feature requires new genes to be made from scratch. Most genes fall into gene families that share common features and ancestry. In other words, most new genes are repackaged old genes. Sometimes things are mixed up a little between gene families. Repeat this process for several billion years, millions of times a day (how many cell divisions/births/germinations etc per day?- probably should make this trillions to get close to the real number) and you can generate quite a bit of diversity. I think the problem you have is imagining a process past 100 years.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
That doesn't mean I'm in Kauai and hanging from a tree.


dont try to deny the obvious ;)

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
there is a veritable assembly line of features that are being added by an as to yet unkown process -- that is, for the time being noted as "chance", or "randomness".

This is the problem, you end up with a plan, but get there without one.

naughty, naughty, this 'chance' and 'randomness' has been observed thousands if not millions and billions of times, it certainly is not an unknown 'process'.

I also don't see the problem, so Im a plan, yet noone planned me? a snowflake is a nicely ordered 'plan' yet nothing planned it, it happens just because that's its natural state when water freezes falling through air - and you need a bit of a telling off for using the word 'plan' if you want to argue with me for using 'process'

[e1618978]

Originally posted by dmz
I will try, but the underlying sentiment seems to be something of an 'elephant in the room'.


....and as for DNA percentages I believe we share 95ish% of our DNA with banana. That doesn't mean I'm in Kauai and hanging from a tree.

No, the banana shares 50% of your DNA - and it is also your cousin (and mine), just not as closely related as the chimp.

They can do analysis of DNA and come up with the family tree of all organisms, and see (based on how different the DNA is) how long ago the split between any two speces was.

You said earlier that you believed in natural selection, just not in the random occurance of useful traits. Do you believe that God pops in a trait now and then to stir things up a bit? Is your vision of past history the same as the evolutionists, except that God caused the mutations?

How do you explain the number of speces of beetle? Did god really need to create 350,000 kinds of beetle? What would his purpose have been?

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by e1618978
How do you explain the number of speces of beetle? Did god really need to create 350,000 kinds of beetle? What would his purpose have been? Practice? I undrestand humans were made right after the dung beetle.