Ancient organic compounds found on Mars

[Phage]

Stromatolites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/...ine/first_life

[peterb]

Stromatolites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/...ine/first_life

Yes, I should have said free oxygen - it is an abundant element, but much of it is locked up in oxides! but oxygen would be a waste product for stromalites (as it is for photosynthesis in plants.

[Phage]

I just wanted to give an example of one of the organisms you were describing. Still around today.

[johnroe]

Let me guess, you interpreted them as such.

You see this is always the problem talking to 'pre 1945 ers' as I call them. They refute the intellectual ideas that were formulated mainly in France, Germany, and Italy after the war. These ideas have changed the way humans view themselves and their relationship to each other; they are embedded in our culture, our thinking, our politics. So yes one of the ideas was a movement away from sole authorities.

For example Darwin was an interpreter of natural evidence. Many came before him like Lamarck, and after, each has a viewpoint, each interprets. We can in turn interpret his evidence and views drawn from, and either repeat them verbatim, or we can think about it for ourselves, and like many scientist who followed Darwin, then explore tangents, or collect evidence that refutes some of his ideas.

It's like those who stereotype others; women are this, young people are that, this people are ........(insert own nonsense). What you ultimately realise, is that they even stereotype themselves, limiting their own thinking, limiting their definitions of what's possible. But I get it you have shut your mind to new ideas that don't conform to your narrow viewpoint.

[ik9000]

You see this is always the problem talking to 'pre 1945 ers' as I call them. They refute the intellectual ideas that were formulated mainly in France, Germany, and Italy after the war. These ideas have changed the way humans view themselves and their relationship to each other; they are embedded in our culture, our thinking, our politics. So yes one of the ideas was a movement away from sole authorities.

For example Darwin was an interpreter of natural evidence. Many came before him like Lamarck, and after, each has a viewpoint, each interprets. We can in turn interpret his evidence and views drawn from, and either repeat them verbatim, or we can think about it for ourselves, and like many scientist who followed Darwin, then explore tangents, or collect evidence that refutes some of his ideas.

It's like those who stereotype others; women are this, young people are that, this people are ........(insert own nonsense). What you ultimately realise, is that they even stereotype themselves, limiting their own thinking, limiting their definitions of what's possible. But I get it you have shut your mind to new ideas that don't conform to your narrow viewpoint.

How many people on here do you think are pre 1945? You really don't make much sense. No-one is stereotyping anyone - except for you maybe by labelling such a diverse group of people as "pre-1945". Limiting definitions of what is possible? No. Asking for justification of your opinions? Yes. But you seem to be incapable of providing any. And apparently pointing that out is so pre-war as to be positively industrial revolution.

It's not limited thinking to point out where your viewpoint differs from scientific fact. You know, like concrete not having sufficient strength when a building is definitely still standing-up long after it should have fallen down.

But anyway, if we're all part of a single living entity as you inferred a while back, then what does it matter? Some parts got more brain cells than others. Some got more social skills, while others are just for venting foul gases and ejecting fecal matter. We're all useful in some ways right? Or is that also too narrow minded for you?

[johnroe]

ik9000>okay here are the analogies you used, 'Do you also interpret the speed limit, and do what your interpretation of it is? What about tax returns? Do you interpret those too? How about prescriptions? Or invoices? Or the instructions on a pack of fireworks?'. You tried to use them as comparative analogies to back up whatever weak argument you were making. When people read a book, watch a film, or read a poem, do you think they all interpret in one way. Your comparative analogies refer to things that are fixed, and are not open to interpretation.(actually I do interpret the speed limit, 70 means a 100mph right)

Unfortunately Darwin's book was mis interpreted by many including, the Church, the governing elite who mis interpreted it using political spin, and also by the general public. But I was just rereading my notes from the book(only made 6 pages), Heck Umberto Eco's The Open Work, which is a complex philosophical treatise on the nature of interpretation and set the framework for much of Post modernism(more than 50 pages). So you can see how my bias has shifted.

The problem is everything you few say is so transparent, it's mostly passive aggressive nonsense that I don't read. Heck I don't need to interpret it, it's blatant. It's what I call a 'pre 1945 mindset' if you refute the ideas of the late twentieth century.

[ik9000]

ik9000>okay here are the analogies you used, 'Do you also interpret the speed limit, and do what your interpretation of it is? What about tax returns? Do you interpret those too? How about prescriptions? Or invoices? Or the instructions on a pack of fireworks?'. You tried to use them as comparative analogies to back up whatever weak argument you were making. When people read a book, watch a film, or read a poem, do you think they all interpret in one way. Your comparative analogies refer to things that are fixed, and are not open to interpretation.(actually I do interpret the speed limit, 70 means a 100mph right)

ooh so you do have some logic in you. You just agreed with my earlier point that things need to be looked at in the context they are intended for (While simultaneously admitting to interpreting the law to suit yourself. I hope you aren't doing 100mph. That would, you know, be illegal and all, and unnecessarily endagering yourself and other road users. ) Could it be we're making progress?

[Phage]

Not sure why everyone is still responding to the troll ?

[johnroe]

peterb>I hear what you are saying, I thought there wasn't an atmosphere originally, but 'Earth is believed to have formed about 5 billion years ago. In the first 500 million years a dense atmosphere emerged from the vapor and gases that were expelled during degassing of the planet's interior. These gases may have consisted of hydrogen (H2), water vapor, methane (CH4) , and carbon oxides', (so I should have said 'breathable atmosphere')

I'm approaching some of this from different perspectives. I think that many are still using that cliche as part of their understanding of Origin. I think people see a hierarchy with humans at the top, but each life form is successful if it survives well in it's niche. Even Darwin wasn't sure that natural selection was the only process at work. He saw all animals as descendant from a few common progenitors all leading back to some primordial form and all sharing the same basis traits(chemical composition, cellular structure, laws of growth, etc).

'all of these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependant upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by the laws acting around us'(CD).

Humans could be said to be detrimental to themselves and the rest of life. But like I found out recently, only 43% of our body's cells are human, even we are in a symbiotic relationship with a second genome. I'd say the book doesn't promote elitism which has been some of the spin, but is an early call to environmentalism(ie: respect other life, it's our relations and ancestors). Now what did they find on Mars?

[Corky34]

You see this is always the problem talking to 'pre 1945 ers' as I call them. They refute the intellectual ideas that were formulated mainly in France, Germany, and Italy after the war. These ideas have changed the way humans view themselves and their relationship to each other; they are embedded in our culture, our thinking, our politics. So yes one of the ideas was a movement away from sole authorities.

Is 'pre 1945 ers' another one of your definitions that only exist in your own mind then?

Is it just like your belief that there was a movement away from sole authorities when in fact that only exists in your imagination, you see in the sphere of public debate people put forward opinions and/or ideas and provide evidence in support of those opinions and/or ideas and by doing so those opinions and/or ideas are submitted for peer review, that's how the world has operated for hundreds of years, ever since the age of enlightenment, when society used to just believe what they were told without question from a single authority, normally the church.

It's something I've noticed in debating with you, you refuse to provide anything in support of your beliefs and then take umbrage when your peers question those beliefs and ask you for supporting evidence, you wonder why so many people are questioning you? That's why, you're submitting your opinions and/or ideas for peer review, by posting them on a public forum, but you refuse to provide any supporting information and expect people to just take your word as gospel.

For example Darwin was an interpreter of natural evidence. Many came before him like Lamarck, and after, each has a viewpoint, each interprets. We can in turn interpret his evidence and views drawn from, and either repeat them verbatim, or we can think about it for ourselves, and like many scientist who followed Darwin, then explore tangents, or collect evidence that refutes some of his ideas.

Is this another of your interpretations, have you interpreted the word interpret to mean something other than its true meaning? Because Darwin did not explain the meaning of natural evidence, you can't explain the meaning of evidence, a fact is a fact and it either supports a proposition or it doesn't, judges don't interpret DNA evidence that puts a suspected murderer at the scene. Darwin made a supposition and proposed a system of ideas intended to explain it, the 'natural evidence' as you put it wasn't open to interpretation, it either supported his supposition and proposed system of ideas or it didn't, you have the horse before the cart.

For some strange reason you seem to believe evidence is interpreted and that interpretation is what forms the belief or opinion when in fact it's the other way around, theory, belief, idea, call it what you will, comes first and either the evidence supports it or it doesn't.

It's like those who stereotype others; women are this, young people are that, this people are ........(insert own nonsense). What you ultimately realise, is that they even stereotype themselves, limiting their own thinking, limiting their definitions of what's possible. But I get it you have shut your mind to new ideas that don't conform to your narrow viewpoint.

Says the person who just stereotyped others by calling them 'pre 1945 ers'!! Your levels of hypocrisy are truly remarkable. It's got nothing to do with what you see as others having closed minds and narrow viewpoints, it's that you're failing to think critically, and as i know you're not going to bother reading what critical thinking means allow me...

Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment. The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposed assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command to their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

I strongly suggest you read that wiki entry but i suspect you'll 'interpret' it to mean something other than what it actual means.

[johnroe]

Corky34> okay I'll address the part that relates to the thread, always with the attacks and diversions.

What do you mean by 'Darwin did not explain the meaning of natural evidence'. Also what do you mean by 'judges don't interpret DNA evidence that puts a suspected murderer at the scene', why are you stating that, of course they don't. I'm just saying if you refute the ideas of the late twentieth century, then I call it that, because the words 'post modern' seem to have been mis interpreted by some.

[johnroe]

I mean there is another way to interpret this

'The new findings – “tough” organic molecules in three-billion-year-old sedimentary rocks near the surface, as well as seasonal variations in the levels of methane in the atmosphere. Organic molecules contain carbon and hydrogen, and also may include oxygen, nitrogen and other elements. While commonly associated with life, organic molecules also can be created by non-biological processes and are not necessarily indicators of life'.> NASA uses data to ensure future funding.

[Corky34]

Corky34> okay I'll address the part that relates to the thread, always with the attacks and diversions.

What do you mean by 'Darwin did not explain the meaning of natural evidence'. Also what do you mean by 'judges don't interpret DNA evidence that puts a suspected murderer at the scene', why are you stating that, of course they don't. I'm just saying if you refute the ideas of the late twentieth century, then I call it that, because the words 'post modern' seem to have been mis interpreted by some.

The whole thing relates to the thread as you're entire way of thinking is flawed, maybe if you hadn't shut your mind to new ideas that don't conform to your narrow viewpoint you'd understand that, you keep claiming you 'interpret' information, evidence, call it what you will, but none of that is open to interpretation, it either contributes to proving or disproving a theory, opinion, belief, or any other way of thinking about the meaning of something else.

Darwin didn't explain the meaning of 'natural evidence', he had an idea or thought and went in search of evidence to support his idea or thought, your whole way of thinking is fallacious.

Just as an aside, were you taught any of the sciences during your time in education?

[johnroe]

Corky34>'flawed', 'fallacious'! I don't know what Darwin thought before he left on his travels. He was conversant with Lamark. So he had this idea, 'a desire for change caused the change to happen in the organism itself and then to be passed on to the offspring'.

He travelled around the world and based on his observations of animals, birds, plants and fossils. Darwin noted the similarities within each species, he also saw local variations to fill specific niches. He concluded that all species were descendant from a common ancestor. The natural evidence led him to formulate his theory which he later tested in his own greenhouse. It's just down to interpretation. Best subjects physics and organic chemistry, but like I say about some natural phenomena, these particularly French theorists blow your mind. But they are in turn bringing together thousands of years of a Jewish ideology.

Look I'm just stating my opinion, everyone has their own. I said how I had interpreted the book, so how did anyone else, and who thought it was total BS. It's still banned in some places, or is that myth.

[Corky34]

I mean there is another way to interpret this

'The new findings – “tough” organic molecules in three-billion-year-old sedimentary rocks near the surface, as well as seasonal variations in the levels of methane in the atmosphere. Organic molecules contain carbon and hydrogen, and also may include oxygen, nitrogen and other elements. While commonly associated with life, organic molecules also can be created by non-biological processes and are not necessarily indicators of life'.> NASA uses data to ensure future funding.

There's loads of ways and if you knew about critical thinking, scientific methods, weighing evidence , and spent a few decades studying geology and biology you'd be able to place a percentage chance on whether the methane came from an organic or inorganic source, as it is neither you or i have decades to waste studying those fields so we depend on someone who has to tell us, a so called expert.

[johnroe]

They do seem to believe that we could predict what alien life would look like based on what we know of how life evolved to this environment. I've also seen this theory that it was pure accident that an archae cell absorbed a bacterial cell, and the first complex cell was formed. That's the sort of leap that takes some explaining, the bacterial cell takes control of the host cell.

Also this is what I meant, by intelligence at that level, self organising systems in conjunction with selection. I haven't read this article yet but this expresses it.

'The basic relationship between self-organization and natural selection is that the same self-organizing processes we observe in physical systems also do much of the work in biological systems. Consequently, selection does not always construct complex mechanisms from scratch. However, selection does capture, manipulate, and control self-organizing mechanisms, which is challenging because these processes are sensitive to environmental conditions'

from> https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/.../11/879/328810

Here's one theory about predicting alien life forms, called Darwin's Aliens. They also say that extreme events trigger evolutionary leaps, which is feasible.

'Both theory and empirical data suggest that extreme conditions are required for major transitions to occur. We suggest that major transitions are likely to be the route to complexity on other planets, and that we should expect them to have been favoured by similarly restrictive conditions. Thus, we can make specific predictions about the biological makeup of complex aliens'. from> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...7C5EAA7D9702D3