Ancient organic compounds found on Mars

[ik9000]

. . /

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It appears Ceres has more organic molecules that expected:

https://www.universetoday.com/139478...ously-thought/

[Corky34]

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.

Can you be more specific as you prevaricate so much it's difficult to keep track of all your insults, fallacious arguments, biases, and irrational beliefs.

And I'm trying to explain to you what i mean when you ask, I've repeatedly clarified things for you when you cast doubt on what i said, I've repeatedly attempted to get you to answer questions so i know if you've understood, and I've repeatedly provided you with answers to your questions or provided you with the means of analysing the information you already have in a logical manner. But for some reason you insist on prevaricating, acting as if you're beyond reproach and everyone else is to blame, and cast aspersions at fellow forum users.

And if you don't think humans are descended from apes then you don't understand the wider context that Darwin's work plays in filed of biology, no single study, no single book, no single eureka moment stands in isolation, have you never heard the metaphor "of dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants"?

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.

As far as we can tell we have descended from apes, that's not to say they also were not descended from other lifeforms, but in genus (a taxonomic rank used in the biological classification of living and fossil organisms, In the hierarchy of biological classification, genus comes above species and below family) they're our closest relatives in the homo genus.

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.

I haven't one interpretation that happens to be different than the one you came to, as I've repeatedly said facts are not open to interpretation, the reason you think we have differing 'interpretations' is, I'm guessing, because you only partially understand the knowledge you've acquired, you can't see the woods for the trees, you're not seeing the context that surrounds knowledge.

And no Darwin's theory was not 'speculation' as there was plenty of evidence, verification, repeated testing, and wide scientific consensus. By saying it was speculative you're implying it was a hypothesis and it wasn't, it may have been a hypothesis at some point in time before Darwin published his work but before that he gathered evidence, verified his findings, repeatedly tested and then finally sort wider scientific consensus from his peers who gathered their own evidence, verified their own findings, and repeated the same tests that Darwin had.

Oh and BTW his theory will forever remain a theory as further evidence such as genetic studies either strengthen the theory or weaken it.

[Butcher]

It's more correct to say we descended from a common ape ancestor, otherwise people take it to mean we descended from modern apes.

[SeriousSam]

It's more correct to say we descended from a common ape ancestor, otherwise people take it to mean we descended from modern apes.

That was the point I was making, though on rereading I can see why the confusion arose.

[Ttaskmaster]

T>Like I said I read it years ago, as I heard the story the publisher put it in the 2nd. Stories eh! Does it really matter.

Does it matter if Darwin himself endorsed and later made use of the very cliche you're currently trying to ridicule and rant about?
Yes, it does - It means that, even from beyond the grave, Darwin himself is calling you a wittering pillock!!

What I'm saying is the cliche is the exact opposite of what the book is about

And what I'm saying is that you're wrong. You misinterpreted something that wasn't open to interpretation in the first place.

I'd need to go back and look at some of this stuff to explain.

You go do that, kiddo...

The problem is you act like a pack, but I just see a herd. Interesting!

Were we a pack, we'd have just killed you off along with the rest of the physically weak and mentally unfit - Survival of the Fittest and all that... but I'm told that's not polite behaviour on a forum.

What the cliche suggests is that the most 'fit', the most competitive and able will survive(which is what Shaftsbury intended).

Depends how you "interpret" the word 'fittest'. You're assuming (incorrectly) that it meant the same back then as it does today.

Okay I do have some out there ideas occasionally, but logic alone isn't enough, you need creative thinking.

Which is fine, so long as your theories and imaginings eventually prove some way toward being accurate. Yours have not rung true at all.

Although I've never convinced anyone of this, what I get from the book is.....

And you haven't wondered why that might be?
Who was it who said, "Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting a different result"?
Certainly, Kelly wrote, "We may define a disorder as any personal construction which is used repeatedly in spite of consistent invalidation".

don't you understand why oh erudite one! I see cliches as just lazy thinking

Using a cliche in a remark denouncing cliches, presumably assuming cleverness while attempting irony... both cases of which are in fact utter cliches!!

It's like those who stereotype others; women are this, young people are that, this people are ........(insert own nonsense).

And yet you say nothing of those stereotypes, their origins, or even those who do behave according to stereotype....

but another forum cliche is calling people out over whether they have or have not read something.

It's also a recognised legal challenge in a court of law, as well as a common test of BS in just about every walk of life. So whether cliched or not, it is still a very effective challenge... and so far, one you have failed.

The evidence is still available if you wished to locate it.

Now why would anyone want evidence?
Surely we can just interpret your interpretations of Darwins interpretations and get the right answer, no?

You see a number of people on here have claimed to have read it

Have they?
Who, exactly....?
So far, there's only you throwing around such claims...

You see before Darwin(and many others), the sole authority would have been the Church.

So let's just imaginitively disregard all those schollars who came before either Darwin or the Church, yes?

[ik9000]

And no Darwin's theory was not 'speculation' as there was plenty of evidence, verification, repeated testing, and wide scientific consensus. By saying it was speculative you're implying it was a hypothesis and it wasn't, it may have been a hypothesis at some point in time before Darwin published his work but before that he gathered evidence, verified his findings, repeatedly tested and then finally sort wider scientific consensus from his peers who gathered their own evidence, verified their own findings, and repeated the same tests that Darwin had.

Didn't Darwin go on the journey to Galapagos et al looking to prove one theory but found the evidence did not support it, and actually let his thinking be shaped by the evidence, which then led to his theories that he published? That's just good science through and through.

[Corky34]

IIRC he didn't go on the beagle trying to prove anything, it was just a bit of a jaunt and a chance to gather assorted specimens as in those times getting your mates round to show them your collection of stuff was quiet the thing, geology was the primary purpose but it was probably the visit to the Galapagos that got him thinking about why similar creatures had distinct changes suited to the island they were on.

[Ttaskmaster]

as in those times getting your mates round to show them your collection of stuff was quiet the thing

Still is, innit?
No different from Farcebooking/Twitting/WhatsApping everyone a photo of your console cartridges today, no?

[ik9000]

Still is, innit?
No different from Farcebooking/Twitting/WhatsApping everyone a photo of your console cartridges today, no?

ooh, well if anyone wants to look at my slides of concrete I'd be happy to oblige.

[peterb]

ooh, well if anyone wants to look at my slides of concrete I'd be happy to oblige.

I've got some photos of paint drying - might be marginally more interesting

[ik9000]

I've got some photos of paint drying - might be marginally more interesting

To some, but it's all relative. For example, this image of 1970s HAC concrete where you can see the dust residue from the sample extraction.... now tell me that doesn't get you at least mildly giddy

edit: found a link that works, not the one I was looking for, but good enough.



concrete so good it got wood....

[Phage]

Were we a pack, we'd have just killed you off along with the rest of the physically weak and mentally unfit - Survival of the Fittest and all that... but I'm told that's not polite behaviour on a forum.

I did wonder why we didn't just stop talking to him...

[ik9000]

I did wonder why we didn't just stop talking to him...

I tried, but everyone kept quoting him, and I still see the quotes even if the posts themselves are blocked. That's even worse than seeing the whole post, otherwise you just get snapshots out of context, and we all know how important it is to properly weigh things in their proper context rather than just jumping to a mistaken conclusion based on nothing than an opinion derived from a partial view of the bigger picture.

[Ttaskmaster]

ooh, well if anyone wants to look at my slides of concrete I'd be happy to oblige.

Alternatively, if anyone would like to come up and see my etchings, I'll be more than obliging...!

[ik9000]

Alternatively, if anyone would like to come up and see my etchings, I'll be more than obliging...!

Is that etchings or itchings? One of those situations where the difference really matters!