Big News From Mars?

[steve000 (Steve)]

Originally Posted by SkyViking

That's going to be good! Can't wait to hear what it is. Maybe they found organics?

Just imagine if they did!

We find new things often on earth but I dont think we have ever found organics from space.

[joe_smith]

Some fragments of the meteorites contain organic molecules, some even they claim are from Mars. Also some scientists say have detected some in the gas cloud at the centre of our galaxy. Its out there all around the place,

My question is "Was the building blocks of life already present at the time of the big bang? was the information for life to evolve present with space time? some kind of directed force on the evolution of the universe and all in it? This is the reason why I keep a open mind to life evolving by some type of directed force, For me Darwinism as put forth by the new atheist elite doesn't make sense to me. To me random mutations and natural section don't explain it all to me. I find they have no hard evidence to say they are right and everyone else is wrong, and no the peoples book is not the answer either to me.

For me its the same as saying "the sun and planets formed by random mutations and natural section" to even say this is stupid because we have a solid theory of gravity and planetary evolution. But they say the same thing about life! they say "life is here because OF random mutations and natural section". Why dose one need a force and the other doesn't? As some say here we came from "pond scum" how could random events on pond sum give us an intelligent conscience and vastly creative animal called a human? That's some major random event to me! from pond scum to landing on the moon all through random mutations and natural section to some this is true, for me it dose not make sense as how it can be true. All the universe is governed by a type of law except life thats how I see it.


This is what drew me into astronomy. Not to look at the stars and planets but to find out how did we get here and why are we here? dose out there have the answer to us being here now?

What do you think? People have good arguments for other peoples views but why do you believe your view? how do you think life started, how did life evolve from big bang to what we have today? I would love to hear why you hold your view, in your own words ask yourself and tell us
why do you love/hate Darwinian evolution or why do you hate/love the claim to some type of "design" is behind the cause of life? This subject is on my mind every day even as a kid, and some have already said here this will news will create a problem for "creationists" why? dose this also create a problem for people looking for "Intelligent Design" in the universe and life? how about Darwinism as put forth by the new atheist elite dose this create a problem for them?

[bloodhound31]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

and some have already said here this will news will create a problem for "creationists"

Hey Joe, the TOS for Ice In Space doesn't allow for religious discussion mate. The post you refer to above was unnecessary bait and a cheap shot and not something to be discussed here.

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

Joe
I think you need to examine the science. If you did you would find out that evolutionary theory and natural selection have nothing to say about the ORIGIN of life, only about who it evolved once it was underway. Which is not to say that the origin of life is not a scientific question. It is in principle possible to work out how life originated and science is making progress on this question.

Malcolm

[Shark Bait (Stu)]

It will be no surprise to have confirmation of organic material / life, past or present, being confirmed on Mars. The really good part is that while it would increase our knowledge, it would open up a whole field of new questions.

[avandonk]

Science is not in the business of disproving any religion. Any religion by definition is faith without evidence for the supernatural.

It is only when the people of any religious belief start to attack the findings of science because of their dogmatic beliefs do we have a problem.

This problem is basically people with no scientific expertise attacking science because they perceive it as a threat to their long held dogmas.

I personally do not have any problem with any religion as they just cannot have any sort of rational disagreement with science as they do not take any evidence as a guide but believe in simplistic explanations of reality. I am sure that their imaginary friend is real to them. Where I come from we call this delusion.

This video says a bit more than I am willing to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nnwvoH-4XI


My personal guess is that the Universe is teeming with life. Fortunately we are far enough apart to not have disagreements like this.

Bert

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Anyway I don't know how this discovery whatever it is can be anything but objective I mean it is completely autonomous a computer doing experiments with no human interference so the data returned can only be objective as the lab is not influenced by a consciousness.

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Anyway I don't know how this discovery whatever it is can be anything but objective I mean it is completely autonomous a computer doing experiments with no human interference so the data returned can only be objective as the lab is not influenced by a consciousness.

I find Buddhists to be rather curious. They have a foot in both camps or not at all. A bit of quantum mechanicity!

Bert

[LewisM]

Have a look at the soil samples that JPL and NASA posted pictures of, with the shiney "rock" or whatever. Now, I am no hydrologist or soil expert, but should soil clump like that without the presence of water or SOMETHING?

[adman (Adam)]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

how could random events on pond sum give us an intelligent conscience and vastly creative animal called a human? That's some major random event to me! from pond scum to landing on the moon all through random mutations and natural section to some this is true, for me it dose not make sense as how it can be true.

Richard Dawkins calls this "the argument from personal incredulity".

There have been many good books - particularly by Richard Dawkins - that explain this topic for the layperson. To say "I just can't see how this can be true" is not really a valid stance to take when there is so much good information out there. This is a subject that you either understand - or you don't. If you don't understand it, then you probably (with respect) need to do some reading before taking a point of view. Then, at least you can say "well, I can understand the mechanism of evolution through natural selection, but I think differently.

As you can probably tell, I am an evolution/natural selection fanboy. For me it is a very simple, elegant theory that has withstood (and indeed been strengthened by) the huge advances that have been made in our knowledge of molecular biology.

Adam

[Colin_Fraser]

joe-smith wrote that he does not understand the theory of evolution. It appears to me he is looking for answers about how we got here.
He says Darwinism does not make sense to him, that random mutations & natural selection does not explain it all. He also says "the peoples book is not the answer either."
These same questions have been asked by humans for thousands of years. And for thousands of years academics (from both camps) have been trying to answer those same questions.

Yet when he asks those questions here, he is ridiculed.
And if one has has religious beliefs they are mocked about their "imaginary friend" and they suffer from delusion.
Pretty obvious some senior members have not evolved very much at all.

Now I understand why religion on many forums is taboo.

[joe_smith]

That's a pretty good video Bert its well done, and I agree with every thing you said. What makes you think "My personal guess is that the Universe is teeming with life" I also guess its true as well, but only if life was somehow included in the big bang and the formation of the universe. I'm not saying some #### did it but I feel there has to be some type of thing that drives it. Why is it ok for the big bang theory to be questioned all the time, we are looking for new particles, dark matter and dark energy and so on. Its alive with science, new views, new findings to me this is science. now switch to evolution theory why must you not question it? by default any view that goes against the current held view is frown upon and rejected, and if any scientist, researcher, student tries to question it, they are committing career suicide.

I know evolution dose not take into account how life started. For me this works for the big bang and the universe, but not for life, Mars cant marry Venus and have little planets. If signs of life are found on Mars then the origin of life must be answered. if life can form and evolve here on Earth and then do the same on Mars for me this is anything but a random freak of nature event. life to me is not random and is not a by product of the universe but a major player in it. I'm not saying this is the golden rule for everyone and want them to agree with me, this is my view.

I have read science books about the subject and have read Dawkins books. I have read books from evolution/natural selection fanboys and also the haters that question it and I can see valid points both sides make. For me Dawkins type of view is closed to any questioning of his view of evolution. If you question it you are labelled a, well if you read his books you will know the names. I don't question evolution as not being true it may well be that its is all true. Lots of people say its rock solid, but a lot also say something is not quite right with the theory. Also the point about molecular biology is also interesting, the way we can change and shape DNA and do Gene splicing and design new organisms like glowing mice just like we are writing a computer program for me shows there is more to life then strict Darwinian evolution tells us.

like Colin said "These same questions have been asked by humans for thousands of years. And for thousands of years academics (from both camps) have been trying to answer those same questions." we are all looking for a answer, well the ones doing the looking are, most don't care and never will. But I want to know I wish I could find comfort in "very simple, elegant theory that has withstood (and indeed been strengthened by) the huge advances that have been made in our knowledge of molecular biology" but I cant no matter how much I read, watch, listen and get ridiculed (not that that worries me) find it true. That "random" in the theory to me doesn't seem right to me know matter how I look at the views that support it and to agree with it would be a lie to myself, will we ever know? one thing for sure if signs of life are found on Mars, I wont be the only one questioning all the different theory holders some tough questions about life, as the man said this is "Earth shattering news" and we should question everything.

[Irish stargazer (John)]

The Big Bang theory and natural selection theory are exactly that- theory.
A theory is only as good as the natural events that it can explain and predict. When something arises that it does not explain or predict, the theory is modified or a new theory is put in place. This is the scientific method. We have be changing theories for thousands of years ( earth centred universe, flat earth, strict Newtonian mechanics). I am quite sure that we do not know everything and even our current theories, as good as they look may not be the full story. Science is the pursuit of truth through evidence, experimentation and critical analysis . It is a tool. I am a trained scientist like many others on these forums. I learned the tools of my trade at school and at universities.
My personal view on life in the universe is that it is inevitable. Be this through a natural force or other means. I can relate to the statement by the late Carl Sagan that life and consciousness are a way for the universe to know itself.

[Baddad (Marty)]

First I want to establish that the following is just speculation.

If what many of us believe to be fact that evidence of life has been found on Mars. What would be the implications? Imagine releasing information such as that.

The science community would be overjoyed. Then there would be the cynics. Those that would not accept the data as accurate. Also there will be those that will try to discredit the findings. It will have a huge impact on the religous communities.

All up, it will throw a cat amongst the pigeons. Perhaps that is why the hesitation. For a discovery such as that, the scientists will be checking and rechecking data. It certainly has the potential for many to say that its all a "scientific scam". ... But then, for what reason? What purpose would it serve? After all the Moon Landing was fake as well. LOL

I say again that this is speculation. I am looking forward to the news release.

Cheers

[gary]

Originally Posted by AFP/Sydney Morning Herald

NASA downplayed talk of a major discovery by its Martian rover after remarks by the mission chief raised hopes it may have unearthed evidence life once existed on the Red Planet.

Sydney Morning Herald article today here -

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci...122-29r51.html

[Stardrifter_WA]

I thought it would end up being a "storm in a tea cup" like the last fiasco about the Mars meteorite ALH84001, which supposedly contained primitive life.

[avandonk]

To Joe Smith. It is a video to make one think. All of us alive today have been about several billlion years in the making. Best bet about 13.7 billion years.

Even though the mechanism of evolution is random mutations, the real driving force is the survivability of the organism with any emerging mutation and the ability to produce viable offspring.

If Dawkins thinks that the ignorati who question evolution are wrong he has a very good reason. They are so ignorant of the science which makes their questioning sound like the simplistic claptrap it is.

This mechanism is totally blind to any underlying direction. If the Earth or any similar planet started all over again you would get a totally different outcome.

It is a complete fallacy to say we are the pinnacle of evolution. We are not.

We just happen to be smart apes that are ruining our planet with our 'success' at plundering natural resources at over twice the rate of their renewal.

The laws of the Universe are immutable. We defy them at our own peril.

Bert

[Darth Wader (Wade)]

If indeed evidence of organic life has been found it will be one of, if not the, most important discovery in the history of mankind. However, I await with scepticism.

To Joe: Read Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth - you will be enlightened.

[adman (Adam)]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

the way we can change and shape DNA and do Gene splicing and design new organisms like glowing mice just like we are writing a computer program for me shows there is more to life then strict Darwinian evolution tells us.

surely this ability to 'change and shape' DNA is a strong point in favour of the method of genetic change behind evolution via natural selection. Except when humans manipulate an animals genes at this level, we are dictating the changes based on our understanding of the function of genes, and are able to produce a predictable outcome. Random mutation is just that - random, and the resulting organism survives or dies because of it (or in spite of it).

What specifically is it about evolution via natural selection that is the sticking point for you - the bit you just can't accept?

Another point I would like to make is that as a theory, evolution via natural selection is being tested all the time. Every (related) experiment and observation tests it, and so far it has not failed. If ever there was an observation or experimental result that did not fit with this theory, it might open a chink in its armour, but so far there is nothing that does not fit - no "rabbit fossils in the precambrian" as Haldane put it.

Adam



Adam

[avandonk]

It is a total copout to assign any sort of direction or design to any outside cognitive force that is responsible for our existence. There is just no evidence.

Primitive beliefs in the supernatural were used to explain the unknown or make sense of a complex world.

For thousands of years in the written history of humankind this mumbo jumbo was used to explain things and control the populace.

Since the enlightenment about three hundred years ago we have used evidence based logic to understand the Universe. This led to overturning long held religious beliefs as a mere fabrication without evidence.

Bit by bit the Universe that all Religions explain is retreating into a tiny corner of unknowing. They call it revelation. I call it made up stuff.

Preposterous claims need extraordinary evidence. Virgin births, talking snakes and zombies are all in the ancient books written by shepherds.

We now call this IVF, cartoons and movies.

Bert