Ancient organic compounds found on Mars

[johnroe]

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.

You're not still on that one are you. I don't think Mars will be colonised, I think these missions are only about mining. I think if they find a few hydrocarbons it's great PR, but the reality is it's being evaluated for mineral mining. '“If companies request assistance or want partnerships related to mining on Mars, we help to the best of our ability,” NASA spokesman Guy Webster told the Thomson Reuters Foundation'.

I don't think we should even think about alien life, but get on with the mining, get the billionaire tourist dollars, and start constructing a series of space stations outwards around more planets to be mined.

from> There is a debate about mineral rights on asteroids and planets https://www.livemint.com/Science/t3q...-world-pr.html

[Xlucine]

Life did its own single-celled anaerobic thing for about a billion years before photosynthetic organisms showed up



That's about twice as long as we've had animals on land and 4 times longer than the period from the first dinosaurs till now, which is a staggering amount of time. ~15 times longer than the period from the asteroid that killed the dinos, and ~100,000 times longer than the period of the earliest human recorded history - for most of the existence of earth, life has been dull slime

[Corky34]

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.

Yes the natural evidence led him to formulate a theory but the evidence that led him to formulate that theory wasn't and still isn't open to interpretation, his theory isn't open to interpretation, we don't need to *explain the meaning of either the evidence or his theory as they're so conclusive that there can be no other truth to the matter.

*Currently at least, if aliens landed on earth tomorrow and provided us with new evidence that contradicted Darwin's theory and/or the evidence then we'd have to look at it again.

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.

Very true but you seem to be missing the fact that not every opinion carries the same weight, for example many people are of the opinion that there's a divine entity but the evidence is severely lacking when it comes to substantiating their opinion, on the other hand many people are of the opinion that Darwin's theory is correct and we're descended from apes and the evidence for that is very compelling, have you never heard the colloquial term incontrovertible evidence? evidence that's so conclusive that there can be no other truth to the matter.

[Butcher]

Very true but you seem to be missing the fact that not every opinion carries the same weight, for example many people are of the opinion that there's a divine entity but the evidence is severely lacking when it comes to substantiating their opinion, on the other hand many people are of the opinion that Darwin's theory is correct and we're descended from apes and the evidence for that is very compelling, have you never heard the colloquial term incontrovertible evidence? evidence that's so conclusive that there can be no other truth to the matter.

Ah but in john's world everything is just an opinion so lets go nuts.
In my opinion gravity wants to make us all fly off into space and we actually stay on earth because of giant magnets in the Earth's core that act on the magnetic moments created by dipoles in the water molecules in our bodies. The magnetosphere is actually our prison, not the thing that saves us from cosmic rays.
Prove me wrong!

[OilSheikh]

Maybe Earth and all the planets were part of one solid lump ? Just like how all the continents were part of Panagea.

[johnroe]

Yes the natural evidence led him to formulate a theory but the evidence that led him to formulate that theory wasn't and still isn't open to interpretation, his theory isn't open to interpretation, we don't need to *explain the meaning of either the evidence or his theory as they're so conclusive that there can be no other truth to the matter.

*Currently at least, if aliens landed on earth tomorrow and provided us with new evidence that contradicted Darwin's theory and/or the evidence then we'd have to look at it again.



Very true but you seem to be missing the fact that not every opinion carries the same weight, for example many people are of the opinion that there's a divine entity but the evidence is severely lacking when it comes to substantiating their opinion, on the other hand many people are of the opinion that Darwin's theory is correct and we're descended from apes and the evidence for that is very compelling, have you never heard the colloquial term incontrovertible evidence? evidence that's so conclusive that there can be no other truth to the matter.

I know that was a bit unfair me having notes, but another forum cliche is calling people out over whether they have or have not read something.

Darwin isn't as definite as you might think, as I mentioned above he wasn't sure that natural selection was the only mechanism at work, he thought it was the main one. He was in contact with naturalists and scientists around the world, so he would have been debating and incorporating others' ideas. The evidence is still available if you wished to locate it.

I get the feeling that you see science as clear cut, definite, and while some elements of it are. When people after looking at masses of data come to a conclusion, make a leap of knowledge, it's like a new way of imagining, it requires a creative leap of faith as well(I'll find something on this, but the way Einstein made his leaps of understanding were more like that attributed to artists like Picasso). I think you are just approaching topics from a different perspective than me. The worst catastrophe is if all humans think the same, and forget that there are 7 billion perspectives.

What do you mean 'we're descended from apes'? Because that was obviously what the general public were led to believe, no doubt Church spin to discredit his THEORY. You see a number of people on here have claimed to have read it, but I don't see any real opinions other than the spin. I bet the only thing that kept Darwin sane, was at least his fellow naturalist didn't mis interpret, but understood.

You see before Darwin(and many others), the sole authority would have been the Church. They saw him as a heretic, but as uncle David reads the last paragraph of the book, you see that Darwin still believed in God, just not the Church's metaphors on the origins of life.

[ik9000]

Darwin, when he wrote the book, believed in God. It dwindled with age, and IIRC wasn't too sure of any deity later in life.

[ik9000]

Ah but in john's world everything is just an opinion so lets go nuts.
In my opinion gravity wants to make us all fly off into space and we actually stay on earth because of giant magnets in the Earth's core that act on the magnetic moments created by dipoles in the water molecules in our bodies. The magnetosphere is actually our prison, not the thing that saves us from cosmic rays.
Prove me wrong!

ok, I'm going to put you in this MRI chamber, and if you're correct we should be able to induce weightlessness. Wanna try it?

[johnroe]

I think the interesting information here is how the needs of Silicon valley is promoting the mining of planets. Plus with companies like SpaceX and Planetary Resources, involved, I think that's the future of Mars. It's obvious the public are being sold this 'pioneer/discovery' version of space exploration, but the reality is exploitation and colonisation, now that's human nature.

It's interesting that like many leaps of understanding by these great thinkers, it's not until decades later that real evidence can back up their predictions. It's from what I understand, that Darwin made these predictions by viewing evidence on a macro scale.

'Indeed, modern genetic tools have allowed us to repeatedly test evolution’s predictions, and those predictions have consistently come true'. 'ultimately that all life on planet earth evolved from a common ancestor'> this is from an article opposing creationist theory, but his points are accepted. from> https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/0...-of-evolution/

[Corky34]

I know that was a bit unfair me having notes, but another forum cliche is calling people out over whether they have or have not read something.

So yet again you've replied but failed to address a single point raised by the person you're replying to, and you're overusing of the word cliché has reached the point that its lost its original meaning or effect, even to the point of being trite or irritating, and you don't even seem to understand what the word means, exactly what 'forum cliche' are you even referring to?

Darwin isn't as definite as you might think, as I mentioned above he wasn't sure that natural selection was the only mechanism at work, he thought it was the main one. He was in contact with naturalists and scientists around the world, so he would have been debating and incorporating others' ideas. The evidence is still available if you wished to locate it.

I never said it was definite, if you understood scientific methods you'd understand why i never said that, i said "they're so conclusive that there can be no other truth to the matter" with the caveat of "Currently at least, if aliens landed on earth tomorrow and provided us with new evidence that contradicted Darwin's theory and/or the evidence then we'd have to look at it again."

Please stop putting words in people mouths, it's not only irritating having to constantly correct you but it's slightly offensive as it shows you're either not reading what people are saying or you're purposefully misunderstand or misrepresenting them.

I get the feeling that you see science as clear cut, definite, and while some elements of it are. When people after looking at masses of data come to a conclusion, make a leap of knowledge, it's like a new way of imagining, it requires a creative leap of faith as well(I'll find something on this, but the way Einstein made his leaps of understanding were more like that attributed to artists like Picasso). I think you are just approaching topics from a different perspective than me. The worst catastrophe is if all humans think the same, and forget that there are 7 billion perspectives.

Science is clear cut it's just that you don't understand how the scientific method and critical thinking are self-correcting methods and/or procedures.

And no science isn't based on leaps of faith or ideas just popping into people heads, it's based on theories and hypothesis that are testable for their validity, it's based on degrees of certainty, inductive reasoning, probability interpretations, and many other methods of objective analysis of facts to form a judgment.

What do you mean 'we're descended from apes'? Because that was obviously what the general public were led to believe, no doubt Church spin to discredit his THEORY. You see a number of people on here have claimed to have read it, but I don't see any real opinions other than the spin. I bet the only thing that kept Darwin sane, was at least his fellow naturalist didn't mis interpret, but understood.

I mean exactly what i said, that the evidence is very compelling, is English your fist language as you really seem to be struggling with the meaning of words, I'm saying that the evidence that we're descended from apes is not able to be refuted, not able to be resisted, that it's overwhelming, and if it is not then you should supply counter-factual evidence that shows we are not.

And no it wasn't church spin to discredit his theory, it was Darwin himself who proposed the theory in the first place, the church thought he was being heretical because they believed we were descended from Adam and eve, and that God created man, for someone who claims to have read Darwin i would have thought that was stating the bleedin obvious but it seems not. (Not authoritative but try reading the Human evolution wiki entry, specifically the history of study where it states...

The possibility of linking humans with earlier apes by descent became clear only after 1859 with the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, in which he argued for the idea of the evolution of new species from earlier ones. Darwin's book did not address the question of human evolution, saying only that "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history

His theory was the spark that lit the fire and made people question the orthodox view peddled by the church for millennia that only 30 years before Darwin published his book saw people being executed for questioning the teaching of the church.

You see before Darwin(and many others), the sole authority would have been the Church. They saw him as a heretic, but as uncle David reads the last paragraph of the book, you see that Darwin still believed in God, just not the Church's metaphors on the origins of life.

And your point is? You do know the two views are not mutual exclusive right?

[Butcher]

ok, I'm going to put you in this MRI chamber, and if you're correct we should be able to induce weightlessness. Wanna try it?

Sure, what's the worst that can happen?

Also the word theory must be one of the most often misunderstood words where science is concerned.

[johnroe]

Corky34> It seems to me that you are doing all the things you claim I am doing, this is ridiculous. I'm just asking you, when I'm not sure, what you mean. If you think humans are descended from apes, then you haven't understood the book. The rest of your post, no content. Therefore no comment. Humans have evolved from those early cells, picking out points on that tree is irrelevant.

[SeriousSam]

Whilst we didn't descend from apes, they are among our ancestors albeit 6-8million years ago. Its one of those taxonomic differences that confuses people.

[johnroe]

Yes. Although that clip is a bit long it does put into animation Darwin's ideas. I think it also shows that all life is one organism, that if viewed over millions of years life has just extended across the Earth to fill all the food niches, then a catastrophic event has caused a major change, and another level of life develops that predates off the lower layers, our ancestors, until we get to humans who are a bit of an anomaly.

Corky>Here's the type of evidence that Darwin used(using what we know retrospectively makes it easy, imagine before)

[ik9000]

Corky34> It seems to me that you are doing all the things you claim I am doing, this is ridiculous. I'm just asking you, when I'm not sure, what you mean. If you think humans are descended from apes, then you haven't understood the book. The rest of your post, no content. Therefore no comment. Humans have evolved from those early cells, picking out points on that tree is irrelevant.

How is it not relevant? He's just shown you why you're being unreasonable and dismissing his quite correct comments regarding evolutionary theory. . Though you are right that humans can be seen as an anomaly.

[johnroe]

ik9000>Yes some humans are more anomalous than others(I include myself in that). Look you haven't understood, Corky has one interpretation, I came to another, that's the way it works, and besides Darwin's theory was speculation until backed up by genetic studies. But I'll just read those that contribute to the thread. I'm remembering somethings and learning some of the new ideas. There's a lot of interesting work going on in this field, and various types from different disciplines working together. All the distraction just ruins the flow.