Further to the recent evidence for water on Mars, and the BBC News commentary that
“If we find life on Mars and it can be shown to be of a different origin to that on Earth, then that essentially means that the Universe is teeming with life. It seems almost impossible that life could spring up by chance on two adjacent planets if life was rare.”
Actually, that doesn’t follow at all. It’s like saying that if there are several species of monotreme mammals in Australia, they must be common all over the planet. They are not. If one doesn’t know the history, one cannot really insist on things like that.
Meanwhile, Rob Sheldon reminisces:
—
I had lunch with one of the Nasa scientists involved in exobiology or astrobiology as it is now called. He was rather incensed by the press reports of “flowing water on Mars”, because he had been saying this for years to staunch denials from HQ. NASA has stubbornly refused to admit to water on Mars for the past 40 years perhaps because they denied Gil Levin the discovery of bacterial life on Mars (the incontrovertible results of his “Labelled Release Experiment” on the Mars Viking Lander) by insisting that before he claimed biology, he had to show water. So for 40 years (Gil is now 88), they have repeated the mantra that there is no life because there is no
water.
Now mind you, the scoop that deposited Martian soil into Gil’s experiment in 1976 showed that the disturbed soil was darker under the surface, and one day later, the soil had brightened–the characteristic of wet soil. It is this same color change that Monday’s press release says is evidence of flowing water. What was insufficient evidence then, has become convincing evidence now. Why?
I read the bbc report (undoubtedly generated from NASA press release documents) and read the following sentences with outrage: “And there was eager anticipation for the results of Viking 1’s tests on soil samples.
One of them indicated what was interpreted as a signature for life – but was soon discounted as a bogus result.
And so for the best part of 20 years, Mars was seen as a dry dusty planet devoid of life.”
But now that we know the 2nd sentence is false, why do we still believe the 1st? The last paragraph of the article explains:
“Dr Matthew Balme of the Open University believes that this will be one of the most important experiments carried out in human history.
“If we find life on Mars and it can be shown to be of a different origin to that on Earth, then that essentially means that the Universe is teeming with life. It seems almost impossible that life could spring up by chance on two adjacent planets if life was rare.”
Let me parse this paragraph:
a) “if we find life” denies that Gil found it 40 years ago. It also motivates the researchers to claim credit for it. Looks like Gil better hang on for a few years or his Nobel prize will be reassigned.
b) “it can be shown to be of different origin” means that the author does not believe in interplanetary transport. Otherwise origins don’t matter. This means he is discounting the work on carbonaceous chondrites.
c) “different origin” suggests that the author believes in spontaneous generation. He obviously doesn’t believe in convergent evolution though.
This is a pickle, since one would think spontaneous generation would have created many different life forms on Earth, unless you think convergent evolution made them indistinguishable.
So why would Mars have different rules for spontaneous generation than Earth–surely not because Earth is less hospitable to life!
d) “that means the Universe is teeming” which is the Fermi question, if the Universe is teeming –“where is everybody?” So apparently the author doesn’t believe the Universe is “teeming”, which is a value-laden word that demands a negative answer. (Look at the connotations of “teeming” in Emma Lazarus’ poem: “the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”)
e) “it seems almost impossible…” because the author actually believes it to be impossible. Nonetheless, one should fund a Mars mission to look for life–why?–because for 40 years NASA has banned any instrument to look for life on Mars, so the Europeans are going to try. But if you aren’t going to believe your data, why send a mission?
Like a Spielberg movie, this contradictory viewpoint is supposed to keep everyone happy–Darwinists, ET fans, ET skeptics–and thereby maximize profits. But there’s one fairy godmother not invited to the party. And she still has the goods.
—
What the thirteenth fairy didn’t have, in the original Sleeping Beauty tale, was a plate at the table. She did have the power to cause trouble and vexation though.
Of note, salt is ‘very effective at dismembering membranes and preventing RNA units (monomers) from forming polymers any longer than two links (dimers)’
Moreover, even if the surface of Mars were not exceptionally salty, pure water, with no salts dissolved within it, is also, by itself, very effective at preventing biological molecules of any significant length from spontaneously forming:
Moreover, there are several more insurmountable hurdles that work in conjunction with the ‘water problem’ that make the spontaneous OOL drastically unfeasible:
Simply put, anyone who is saying life must be abundant in the universe is operating from ulterior motives that have nothing to do with the actual science at hand.
Semi related:
Citizen Mars – videos
We go in depth with five of the finalists for the Mars One mission: everyday people determined to be the first to colonize the Red Planet (with no return trip to earth). Through interviews and extensive vérité that spans India, Egypt, South Africa, Italy, and the U.S., discover the obsession with the future, adventure, and space that’s propelling them to leave everything – and everyone – behind.
http://www.engadget.com/citizen-mars/
‘Hate to say it but this statement:
Makes total sense to me.
If no life is found on mars (by far the likely case) then we know that the water = life formula is way too simplistic.
If we find life on mars that is very like our life (DNA with the same amino acid mapping) then the assumption that both have the same source (we got life from them, they got life from us or we both got life from a third source) is reasonable.
If, however, life on mars is found, and is somehow fundamentally different, the “same source” hypothesis would be about toast. The water = life theory would be supported. Nothing much would be said about ID, one way or ‘t-other.
If Martian life is found to be based on DNA, then there can be no question that it has the same design origin as terrestrial life. IOW, both were designed by the same intelligent designers.
If it is found to be based on something other than DNA, then it may be a sign that there are multiple designers with different goals in the same small corner of the universe. A more plausible explanation is that the same designers of life on earth were experimenting with some other approach on Mars. After all, intelligent beings do conduct experiments. This is a call for caution. If it’s alien, don’t mess with it. The “Andromeda strain” scenario comes to mind.
Thinking out loud.
OT: podcast – Felipe Aizpún: Design, Teleology and Philosophy – October 5, 2015
On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with Felipe Aizpún, author of The Fifth Way and Intelligent Design (La quinta vía y el diseño inteligente) and prolific writer on ID and the debate over origins. Aizpún shares how intelligent design is both a scientific and philosophical argument, and discusses Thomist philosophers’ opposition to ID.
http://www.discovery.org/multi.....more-30861
OT:
Actually a challenge to keep from contaminating Mars with Earth life:
http://blogs.discovermagazine......hMXIVJHbCQ
Many others would like to “terraform Mars”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars
If life is found on Mars, will some resist introducing “invasive” Earth life there? Probably.
BTW, I thought “water on Mars” was old news. I need to pay better attention.
ppolish, “BTW, I thought “water on Mars” was old news. I need to pay better attention.”
Actually, ice and and subterranean water on mars has been known. What has been confirmed is free flowing surface water (salt water).
What iswater? isour water evolved from selection on the planet? Why would water on other planets be the same materials?
I think water could be around if asteroids are said to have ice, smash down, and vaporing might leave water sudden;y for a while. In fact more likely this is the origin for water flow on planets as opposed to their natural origin of creating water.
What is water on other planets?
If it turns out that Mars water is made of the same materials as Earth water, that’s a slam-dunk design inference, I tell you what.
daveS states:
“If it turns out that Mars water is made of the same materials as Earth water, that’s a slam-dunk design inference, I tell you what.”
I don’t know what kind of comment that is suppose to be from our resident dogmatic atheist, but what I do know is that water, much to the consternation of atheists everywhere, does indeed give every indication of having been Intelligently Designed for a purpose. That purpose being biological life itself.
On and on through each characteristic we can possibly measure water with, it turns out to be required to be almost exactly as it is or complex life on this earth could not exist. No other liquid in the universe comes anywhere near matching water in its fitness for life (Denton: Nature’s Destiny).
Even the oceans have to be the size they are in order to stabilize the temperature of the earth so human life may be possible.
Moreover, besides all the many other life enabling properties of water, its obvious that water was also ‘designed’ specifically with protein folding in mind:
Verse:
In jest, obviously.
dS 13
Hank on King of the Hill, right? “I tell you what.”
My other favorite Hank saying is, “That boy ain’t right!”
Daves
Are you saying Mars water is the same material as earth water? I understand its an exact equation of what our water is. why would it be the same there? Maybe it is or would be. Would gravity issues affect things?
i understand the invesyigation of what water is has still been going on. its weird
Its flowing is a product of gravity. Its cohesion.
i suspect there is no water and any liquid found is a result of heat melting ice etc. The ice being not evidence of flowing water either. Perhaps truly just a chemical reaction that is water or like water.
I got a hunch they haven’t thought this through. As usual.
anthropic @14: Yup!
Robert Byers @15: Yes, although the ratio of heavy water to light water is apparently higher on Mars. What other “materials” do you think are involved besides hydrogen and oxygen atoms?
daves
i don’t know. It is chemistry but if water is uniquely developed by earth then it would not be the same as elsewhere. So I guess they say water is not unique or a product of earths unique origin. Fine. its a general element in the universe.
So all that remains is IS this element affected by the unique place it is. Gravity and so on. So the simple idea of water equals life would not be true.
Could there not be another KIND of water? Is it only possible for these elements to make only this element? Just musing.
Robert, you need to study some basic chemistry: Water is H20 – two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, and would be the same anyplace in the universe. Water is not an element, by the way, and the fact that it is affected by gravity is irrelevant – all substances are affected by gravity, and all liquid substances, on any gravitational body in the universe, would flow towards the center of gravity.
If you don’t know these basics, I can’t see how anything you would say about science could be credible, since this is introductory high school science.
So, when you ask, “Is it only possible for these elements to make only this element?”, the answer is “Yes”. Instead of musing, you should study.
And no, the simple idea of “water equals life” s not true, and no one has said it is. In respect to life as we know it, water is an essential and necessary component, but it is certainly not sufficient.
In the event that Martian life is observed to be founded on DNA, at that point there can be no doubt that it has a similar outline source as earthbound life. IOW, both were planned by the same shrewd creators.
http://www.gurgaoncompanion.com
On the off chance that it is observed to be founded on an option that is other than DNA, at that point it might be an indication that there are numerous originators with various objectives in a similar little corner of the universe. A more conceivable clarification is that similar originators of life on earth were trying different things with some other approach on Mars. All things considered, insightful creatures do direct examinations. This is a call for alert. On the off chance that it’s outsider, don’t upset it. The “Andromeda strain” situation rings a bell.
Verbally processing.