Ancient organic compounds found on Mars

[ik9000]

ik9000>what is that? Look I just cut people out when they get boring, and seem to be attacking me.

Seems to me like you cut people when they expose the shortcomings in your misguided opinions.

Our minds are obviously evolving to match our technological capabilities.

Not so sure about that. Have you seen this Love Island thing they keep showing adverts for? Or a parliamentary session of PMQs for that matter?

[Ttaskmaster]

I believe there is some inherent intelligence within life itself(not cognitive), that gives it purpose.

That would be Cell Determination...

Run along saddo. Is this about the time we ask, is there intelligent life on Earth. Let's just examine this masterpiece ^

Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge. You've been offered it and instead discarded it.
I think you've answered your own question!

ik9000>what is that? Look I just cut people out when they get boring, and seem to be attacking me.

And that's the problem - People crack a generalised joke about thread content (in this case, about Doctor Who) and you take it like some kind of personal attack!!!
It's a joke. We humans do it all the time, especially the British ones. This (and the constant referencing of things you've read/studied, as some form of assumed validation to your assertions) is why I 'stereotyped' you as a 25 year old kid... because you're behaving like one!!

As for the "boring" part - Well, with something so utterly subjective that's your problem alone and I suggest you take it off to some dark corner of your psyche somewhere, or go find a forum full of people you don't think are boring.

Isn't there some idea that if humans went on deep space missions, they would evolve to that life and environment maybe over generations, and therefore return as alien.

There is, as well as the theory that they'd be modified and adapted to expected conditions before going out in the same way you'd put on PPE. They could even do that now, in fact, with Verilog-based programming languages for DNA sequencing - One current project is currently coding up bacteria cells that respond to eliminate tumours in the same way white blood cells respond to infection.

Our minds are obviously evolving to match our technological capabilities.

I disagree.
Evolution implies development, progression, maturation, advancement, expansion.
Rather, I would say that technology is taking advantage of our cognitive tendencies to prefer the path of least resistance... ie, the lazy way. Yes, people are becoming more tech-savvy and potentially achieving some wonderful things with it... but at the expense of more fundamental cognitive conventions that underpin our status as human beings - We're far less social these days and as a result mental illnesses and depression are higher than ever. This creates the need for a whole sidetrack in combating (more likely just placating) the mental issues with distractions like Facebook, meaningless memes, Reality TV shows and so on - Seriously... we have to fake TV about reality, because we no longer have that reality in our own lives??!!

Our minds are not evolving, we are becoming cognitively complacent.

Your idea of auteur-programmed AI VR being the future, where the virtual is nearly indistinguishable from reality is the death sentence for the human race. While it would solve the problem of people (families, no less, with young children and everything) living in unsafe hell-hole towerblock death traps, surrounded by Blair-gate immigrant drug dealers and armed Police shootouts on the streets, as they'd be so taken with the indistinguishable Virtual Reality that they'd not two hoots about their real reality... they'd also be making no real world progress and that's where the world is just handed over to the AIs forevermore.

Then it wouldn't matter in the slightest if there are any habitable planets or not, with alien life forms or not - Any humans still existing would be too concerned with living their Virtual lives to care about flying off into real outer space.

But of course, all of this has already been covered by sci-fi stories in things like Doctor Who.

[johnroe]

I've read it. It's an interesting historical text, but hardly cutting edge science. If that's John's source era we'll be hearing about the luminiferous ether anytime now.

It's interesting monitoring what you say, how you misinterpret, how you spin. I said that book was my starting point when trying to understand life on Earth, and from there I moved on to more contemporary text books. But I'm on to you. Nothing to say, just moan and bitch, how refreshing on the internet.

[peterb]

I've read it. It's an interesting historical text, but hardly cutting edge science. If that's John's source era we'll be hearing about the luminiferous ether anytime now.

Well, its historical now, but it was pretty ground breaking at the time!

And like all good science, it prepared the ground for future researchers, and some of that research showed flaws in some of Darwin's ideas - but that doesn't mean it should be dismissed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Putting on my moderation hat (which has evolved to a high degree of sensitivity during my membershio of this forum)

I have just deleted a couple of posts for a bit of childish name calling, and a reply, which didn't really add much to the discussion.

It takes more time and effort to delete and edit posts than it does to take er.... 'more extreme' action - and I tend to be lazy..... 'nuff said?

I would add that everyone is free to post their ideas and theories, but they should expect opinions and interpretations to be challenged, especially if they fly in the face of generally accepted theories.

[johnroe]

Well, its historical now, but it was pretty ground breaking at the time!

And like all good science, it prepared the ground for future researchers, and some of that research showed flaws in some of Darwin's ideas - but that doesn't mean it should be dismissed.

I was thinking about this. Before Darwin released his ideas, the over whelming understanding of how life came about was through theological ideas. I'm sure each religion had their own metaphors. Around the world many scientists had been collecting evidence and trying to interpret it. There were many competing theories.

Darwin didn't release his formulated concept for ten years; partly they say because of the religious belief's of his wife, partly because he knew he would face a backlash and be ridiculed in public; so he continued quietly to experiment at home. It was only when he heard that several other scientists were about to release their theories that he published. The document was immediately politicised when Herbert Spencer coined the cliche 'survival of the fittest', and that was added to later editions. The fact is sometimes you do have to think outside the box, even if that box has been constructed in your mind(although I think Darwin remained religious, just probably banned from the local church).

Also many thinkers from that era have had a profound affect; whether it's Darwin, or Einstein or Marx. Interesting to see Hawking will be interred between Newton and Darwin(tomorrow I think). A fitting resting place between two of the greats of British Scientific discovery.

[SeriousSam]

I wouldn't put Hawking in the same league as Newton, Einstein or Darwin when it comes to impact on science. As there are quite a few names I'd put ahead of him, e.g. Paul Dirac. However, I'd concede the point in terms of effect on the general perception / engagement with science.

[johnroe]

Yes he's being honoured in that company. I suppose he has increased engagement like you say and sometimes reputations grow with time.

It's strange because scientists in this field of; exploration for life, and potential habitable planets have to also be dreamers as well. They have to carry out research, analyse massive amounts of data, but they also have to believe there is a chance that life exists elsewhere. Alien life only lives in our minds, maybe sci fi perpetuates the belief. (Saw the terrible LIFE the other day, where they take a Mars sample to the ISS. I think aliens used to have two modes; help us or destroy, but since Alien they are a figure of horror).

It's interesting when you ask people, they all have their own list of great scientists, often the pioneers. Tesla is a favourite of many. I also include the likes of Eco as great thinkers.

[Ttaskmaster]

I said that book was my starting point when trying to understand life on Earth, and from there I moved on to more contemporary text books.

Any reason you didn't start with something earlier, like Physicæ Auscultationes?

Also, it's On the Origin of Species - specifically On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)... because Species is plural in this case - And for that exact reason, I invariably find use of the inaccurate title to be indicative of those who haven't actually read it!

[johnroe]

T>give it a rest. I adopted the idea of making notes from every book I read, yes it's OCD, but when it came to writing essays it was useful to have instant reference. That series of books was just personal reading, I do find it ironic, that most people only remember Spencer's cliche, and I get those on the Left who haven't read it claiming it's elitist and linked to colonisation(ie:justifies it).

But they only know the cliche. What I took from it the simplest of terms, is that life adapts to any environment(and it does that by the process of natural selection). I interpret it as looking at Life specifically as an entity, rather than seeing individual competing species. I read it a long time ago, but it's one of several books that had an impact. To me reading Darwin was a pleasure, try reading Derrida.

[ik9000]

But they only know the cliche. What I took from it the simplest of terms, is that life adapts to any environment(and it does that by the process of natural selection). I interpret it as looking at Life specifically as an entity, rather than seeing individual competing species. I read it a long time ago, but it's one of several books that had an impact. To me reading Darwin was a pleasure, try reading Derrida.

It's interesting that this forms a big part of several of your posts. you interpret scientific papers in your own way. It's a rather bizarre approach. Do you know of anyone else in the scientific community who share this view, or is this one of your own? 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? Things need to be read in their appropriate context, and mindful of what they're intended for. Not everything is a piece of poetry intended to allow the reader to make of it what they choose or imagine it to be.

Also, can I just check, as you use the word a lot, by what you interpret the word "cliche" to mean, as I'm not following a number of the posts in which you use it, and I'm wondering if perhaps you mean something else.

[johnroe]

It's interesting that this forms a big part of several of your posts. you interpret scientific papers in your own way. It's a rather bizarre approach. Do you know of anyone else in the scientific community who share this view, or is this one of your own? 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? Things need to be read in their appropriate context, and mindful of what they're intended for. Not everything is a piece of poetry intended to allow the reader to make of it what they choose or imagine it to be.

Also, can I just check, as you use the word a lot, by what you interpret the word "cliche" to mean, as I'm not following a number of the posts in which you use it, and I'm wondering if perhaps you mean something else.

I think all these writers are primarily thinkers. A scientist thinks about a problem, then tests it in reality. They are putting forward a series of ideas and concepts. Again it's part of post modernist thought that everyone is an interpreter. So rather than say just reading Origin, you draw your own conclusions from it. So a number of people have claimed to have read it, how did you interpret it?

You know considering Corky keeps giving me grief over not using proper debating techniques on a forum(about tech parts) , get his advice on logical analogies, because yours make no sense. I use 'cliche' to mean a statement or idea often repeated. In the case of Origin it was a cliche he didn't use, but everyone else does(as I said it was added to the second edition, the publishers saw it as a marketing handle). But it actually distracts from the original. What does 'survival of the fittest' even mean? Anyway despite constant claims that I'm a fiction writer, if we all start calling each other liars where do we end up.

[Ttaskmaster]

T>give it a rest.

You brought it up. Must be relevant in some way...

I do find it ironic, that most people only remember Shaftsbury's cliche

Which one in particular were you thinking of?

What I took from it the simplest of terms, is that life adapts to any environment(and it does that by the process of natural selection).

In theory, but not just through that.

[peterb]

What does 'survival of the fittest' even mean?

It means those who are able to survive the environmental conditions they find themselves in. It originally referred to species. so those species that adapted to changing conditions (ie the fittest for those conditions) survived to reproduce.

For example.. The meteorite impact that lead to the destruction of the dinosaurs cause a massive climate change in a very short period of time, so short and so severe that the majority of dinosaurs could not adapt to the changed environment quickly enough - so they died out.

This changed environment (including the loss of the dinosaur predators) favoured small mammals, who were fitter for survival in the the new conditions, so they thrived and went onto evolve - ultimately to humanoid species.

[ik9000]

I think all these writers are primarily thinkers. A scientist thinks about a problem, then tests it in reality. They are putting forward a series of ideas and concepts. Again it's part of post modernist thought that everyone is an interpreter. So rather than say just reading Origin, you draw your own conclusions from it. So a number of people have claimed to have read it, how did you interpret it?

You know considering Corky keeps giving me grief over not using proper debating techniques on a forum(about tech parts) , get his advice on logical analogies, because yours make no sense. I use 'cliche' to mean a statement or idea often repeated. In the case of Origin it was a cliche he didn't use, but everyone else does(as I said it was added to the second edition, the publishers saw it as a marketing handle). But it actually distracts from the original. What does 'survival of the fittest' even mean? Anyway despite constant claims that I'm a fiction writer, if we all start calling each other liars where do we end up.

You seem to have a complex. I'm confused as to where I've mentioned anything about logical analogies, or where you think I've started calling you a liar. In other threads I've pointed out your complete and utter failure to provide any evidence to corroborate your claims or support your opinions, despite repeated requests. But if you feel awkward and like that shows you to be a liar, then I'm afraid that is very much your problem and something you are bringing to this. Please don't project your own feelings onto me and insinuate I've made claims about you when I have not.

If you mean cliche to mean a statement or idea often repeated then your use of it in several posts is incorrect with itself. Also posters asking repeatedly for an answer is not a cliche, nor is saying your opinion doesn't make sense. They are simply pressing you for an answer.

[ik9000]

It means those who are able to survive the environmental conditions they find themselves in. It originally referred to species. so those species that adapted to changing conditions (ie the fittest for those conditions) survived to reproduce.

For example.. The meteorite impact that lead to the destruction of the dinosaurs cause a massive climate change in a very short period of time, so short and so severe that the majority of dinosaurs could not adapt to the changed environment quickly enough - so they died out.

This changed environment (including the loss of the dinosaur predators) favoured small mammals, who were fitter for survival in the the new conditions, so they thrived and went onto evolve - ultimately to humanoid species.

oh Peter, that's so cliche. That's what all the scientific papers and textbooks say. Can't I interpret it to mean what I like?

[johnroe]

peterb> But it wasn't in the original. I think if you look at the whole of life on the planet as one entity, it has adapted to make the best use of that environment(ie: the planet). What the cliche suggests is that the most 'fit', the most competitive and able will survive(which is what Spencer intended).

Okay I do have some out there ideas occasionally, but logic alone isn't enough, you need creative thinking. Although I've never convinced anyone of this, what I get from the book is all life on Earth is one entity, but just split into many diverse forms. I think if humans switched for a while to that viewpoint, they would view everything alive in a different way. Which is how I think Darwin saw life.

Here's short film which looks at the massive range of insects on the planet, It's called While Darwin Sleeps> https://vimeo.com/271932549