Vid: Hoping to find ancient life remains on Mars

_{kairosfocus

December 18, 2015

Origin Of Life, rhetoric, specified complexity, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I ran across a vid of a proposal developed by Martin Marietta to explore Mars, towards settlement (and terraforming?):

[youtube tcTZvNLL0-w]

What I find highly interesting is the motivations given. In addition to the Mars colonisation idea, there seems to be hope that finding “independent” life on Mars would show life must be common in the universe.

Of course, we will recall the 1990’s dust up over Nasa’s announcement of life on a meteorite held to have come from Mars. (Cf Wiki here.) Which, brings to mind Astronomer and Old Earth Creationist Hugh Ross’ thought that impacts on Earth would spread life-bearing rocks far and wide across the solar system. *His initial response to the Nasa announcement is here.)

But, too, there is a big question:

wouldn’t it be much simpler and cheaper to address the issue of whether functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information (FSCO/I) can credibly come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity right here on Earth?

Perhaps, it is time to begin decoupling the long term solar system colonisation project from speculations on the origin of life and its hoped for abundance in the universe?

Thoughts welcome. END

Comments

@49 George " you made yourself look foolish the last time you took a literal interpretation of the word when I used them." Wow, You are still smarting from your humiliation on the other thread George. CY educated you about the use of quotes after you made a fool of yourself, You are still crying about your humiliation. haha Hey George, I have no problem if your argument to cover your humiliation is that you believe in non evil evil. haha "you made yourself look foolish the last time you took a literal interpretation of the word when I used them." Poor George is still crying over his humiliation on the other thread. He believes in non evil evil. haha "Evolution has been “designing” (Caution, scare quotes) for a few billion years, humans for a few thousand. It would only be smart to take advantage if “designs” (Caution, scare quotes) that nature has shown to be quite effective." Ladies and Gentlemen. George believes in non design design. haha If there is no design then there is no design to model, We do find design to model thus disproving the claim of no design. You are most welcome to believe in the oxymoron of non design design though George. haha "But, you might also note that we do not mimic all of the “designs” (Cation, scare quotes that we see in nature." George believes in non design design folks. haha "We don’t build our cameras like the human eye we don’t run electrical circuits in a skyscraper from the basement to the thirtieth floor and back just to provide power to a lamp in the basement, with no other outlets or junctions in the circuit." Design is found in the human eye however and modeled, This should not be possible if there is no design in living things to model for design solutions. But like I said George, You are most welcome to believe in non design design just like you are welcome to believe in non evil evil. hahaJack Jones_{December 21, 2015
December
12
Dec
21
21
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

jerry: I know that there has always been speculation that Mars had water at one time but Eric Metaxas reported that as impossible. The mass of Mars is too small to keep water on the surface. The process of losing its water took place over geological time scales. Water was added to Mars through bombardment, and then by volcanism. Water vapor then formed an atmosphere which, along with carbon dioxide, constituted a greenhouse layer, while a small magnetic field shielded the atmosphere from high energy radiation, slowing the process by which the atmosphere escaped to space. The faster the water evaporated, the thicker the atmosphere, a negative feedback. Eventually, over hundreds-of-millions of years, Mars was left a desert. Yet, liquid water may still form under certain conditions.Zachriel_{December 21, 2015
December
12
Dec
21
21
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

J, it is not the molecular weight of water but its tendency to clump that counts, i.e. it is polar and forms a sort of 3-d polymer with holes in it allowing flow, to use crude terms. That is why it is liquid under normal conditions on Earth. For Mars, coldness points to ice and the signs that suggest liquid flows are interesting, BTW IIRC there was suggestion of ice on the Moon. Asteroid belt too. KFkairosfocus_{December 20, 2015
December
12
Dec
20
20
2015
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

Nasa is arguing that water on Mars is a current matter, including flow phenomena.
Well, someone should ask NASA if water would evaporate on Mars due to its molecular weight. I would be interested in their response.jerry_{December 20, 2015
December
12
Dec
20
20
2015
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

J, Nasa is arguing that water on Mars is a current matter, including flow phenomena. KFkairosfocus_{December 20, 2015
December
12
Dec
20
20
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

The Canyons?
Again, could water have ever existed on Mars in a liquid form? Would it not evaporate away? Are these speculations in the past about Mars not based on physics but popular misunderstanding? Or is the physics that Metaxas cited, wrong? I am curious because Metaxas makes a point of this in describing Earth as extremely unlikely. Water will cling to surface at molecular weight of 18 but Methane and Ammonia at 16 and 17 will not. So on Mars all but heavy gases would evaporate. I am not an expert by any means but this is interesting.jerry_{December 20, 2015
December
12
Dec
20
20
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

F/N: The Durston et al paper that should give pause to a few objectors trying to suggest that functionally specific complex organisation and/or information is not a confirmed biological phenomenon discussed in peer reviewed literature and/or that it does not raise serious questions of design as credible cause: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47 KFkairosfocus_{December 20, 2015
December
12
Dec
20
20
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Jerry, interesting. The Canyons? http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/atlas/valles-marineris.html Also cf here: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-flows-on-today-s-mars KFkairosfocus_{December 20, 2015
December
12
Dec
20
20
2015
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Similar to Earth? Used to have a lot of water?
I know that there has always been speculation that Mars had water at one time but Eric Metaxas reported that as impossible. The mass of Mars is too small to keep water on the surface. It would all evaporate away.jerry_{December 20, 2015
December
12
Dec
20
20
2015
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

GE, It is clear that you refuse to examine and reflect for yourself on a phenomenon as literally in your face as the text strings -- let me amplify: s-t-r-i-n-g-s -- you had to compose in order to object. I further add: DNA/mRNA shows such strings. Where more complex node arc patterns can be reduced to structured y/n q's i.e. a description language, rendering a discussion on strings WLOG. Cf AutoCAD files stored in memory to clarify if this is a mystery, noting that a binary digit is effectively a y/n q answered. That pattern shown above is inadvertently revealing. KFkairosfocus_{December 20, 2015
December
12
Dec
20
20
2015
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

JJ: "What scientific test was done on the claim that claims have to be published to have any validity and which journal was this published in?" There is plenty of bad science published in peer reviewed journals. It is far from a perfect system. But at least it is a system. And if FSCO/I has as much evidence supporting it as KF is claiming, and if it is testable, why can the number of peer reviewed papers demonstrating its applicability in biology be counted on the fingers of one hand of an amputee? KF claims that this is due to censorship but he has never once submitted it for peer review. That speaks volumes. That would be like claiming that I was never elected mayor in my city because of racism, when I have never run for mayor. Both are empty claims. JJ: "George ” All based on human design.” And Human designs are being based off of what is discovered in Organisms, The field of Biomimicry is thriving as Inventors model their designs off of what they see in living things." Such as the arch and the column and the wheel and the bow and arrow and the gun and sky scrapers? Yes, we are designing things based on the "design" of living things (JJ, be mindful of the scare quotes around design, you made yourself look foolish the last time you took a literal interpretation of the word when I used them. I would hate to see you make a fool of yourself more than is your norm). Evolution has been "designing" (Caution, scare quotes) for a few billion years, humans for a few thousand. It would only be smart to take advantage if "designs" (Caution, scare quotes) that nature has shown to be quite effective. But, you might also note that we do not mimic all of the "designs" (Cation, scare quotes) that we see in nature. We don't build our cameras like the human eye, we don't run electrical circuits in a skyscraper from the basement to the thirtieth floor and back just to provide power to a lamp in the basement, with no other outlets or junctions in the circuit.George Edwards_{December 20, 2015
December
12
Dec
20
20
2015
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

KF: "… were apparently independent life to be found [on Mars], it will be trumpeted as a triumph of the evolutionary materialist school of thought." Tiger: "That doesn’t make any sense if ID is compatible with materialism. It would be a triumph for ID, wouldn’t it?" Actually, it doesn't lend support to either side. All it would suggest is that life in the universe is far more common than most people previously believed. If the life was DNA based and otherwise very similar to that in earth, I can conceive that the IDism side might claim victory. Conversely, if it was not DNA based, I can conceive that the evolution side might claim victory. But both would be wrong.George Edwards_{December 20, 2015
December
12
Dec
20
20
2015
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Obviously if we find complex specified information then that's solid evidence of life. kairosfocus:
* [T]he design inference proper is independent of metaphysical positions ... * finding a spontaneous origin of life or body plans would not decide whether there is mind beyond matter, or whether reality is wholly material * the design inference proper does not depend on the ultimate nature of designers
So you agree that ID is compatible with materialism.
... were apparently independent life to be found [on Mars], it will be trumpeted as a triumph of the evolutionary materialist school of thought.
That doesn't make any sense if ID is compatible with materialism. It would be a triumph for ID, wouldn't it?Tiger131_{December 20, 2015
December
12
Dec
20
20
2015
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

Alicia Cartelli: We certainly have a general definition of life and know a good deal about it. You and who else? What is your definition of life?Mung_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Alicia Cartelli: Non-scientific inventions? I can’t think of one. Stretch your mind a bit. How about writing?Mung_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

Alicia Cartelli: Sure there’s non-scientific knowledge. Indeed. Science would not even be possible if that were not the case. Do your course materials inform your students that non-scientific knowledge is possible?Mung_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

Alicia, given that you are willing to admit that your proposal fails to offer either necessary or sufficient conditions, why did you think my question so dumb? Surely you presented to us for our consideration the best that science has to offer!Mung_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

AC, there is no generally acknowledged one size fits all definition of life. As for inventions, inventiveness and patents are not at all locked down to science. KFkairosfocus_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

Not necessary or sufficient. Sure there’s non-scientific knowledge. Non-scientific inventions? I can’t think of one. We certainly have a general definition of life and know a good deal about it. Finding anything resembling these things would be a good indication of life. “what on earth is biology about?” It doesn’t surprise me that you are asking this question, Mungy. Always nice talking to you too.Alicia Cartelli_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

George "You base your entire conclusion about censorship on shoddy documentaries like Expelled" Somebody with your shoddy reasoning has no credibility when talking about what is or is not shoddy. George "Submit your research for publication and see what happens." What scientific test was done on the claim that claims have to be published to have any validity and which journal was this published in? George " All based on human design." And Human designs are being based off of what is discovered in Organisms, The field of Biomimicry is thriving as Inventors model their designs off of what they see in living things. You are most welcome to put your faith in dumb chance but dumb chance cannot explain the design being discovered with living organisms. "Maybe if you could refer to a peer reviewed paper in a science journal that supports your point" Again: What scientific test was done on the claim that claims have to be published to have any validity and which journal was this published in?Jack Jones_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life Essays on Life ItselfMung_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Alicia Cartelli:
First of all, discovering evidence of life on another planet will require the use of our scientific knowledge/inventions.
Is that, in your opinion, a necessary condition for it to be a scientific discovery? Is it a sufficient condition? Is there such a thing as non-scientific knowledge and non-scientific inventions? If so, how do we tell the difference? Given that the question, What Is Life? still remains unanswered by science, how does science tell us what constitutes evidence of life?
It will also redefine how we think about biology, depending on exactly what this evidence is.
Given that we don't know what life is, what on earth is biology about? Perhaps it's already past time that we begin to redefine what we think about biology. Nice talking to you, Alicia.Mung_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

GE, You are simply recirculating already adequately answered points. The concept is not new to me or even to the ID movement. It has long been recognised as relevant to life forms and in fact is a descriptive term for a commonplace phenomenon of composite functional entities that are put together per an explicit or implicit wiring diagram to achieve function. The quantity of information involved can be assessed per description length, as was also described. The simplest case is string data structures, such as in text and in DNA. Once the complexity passes a certain threshold, it will run into the needle in haystack search challenge. So, as is readily seen, design is its best explanation. That you seem to have difficulty facing this and closely linked terms and concepts as well as observations, speaks volumes and not in favour of the dismissal you are attempting. Duly noted. KF PS: Not all observed cases of FSCO/I are of human origin, and there is no good reason to infer that we exhaust possible designers.kairosfocus_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

KF: "GE, if you are not aware of the lockout game has been going on for a long time, perhaps you need to come up to speed." Can I take this to mean that you have not submitted your FSCO/I idea with its preponderance of overwhelming evidence for publication in a recognized science journal? You base your entire conclusion about censorship on shoddy documentaries like Expelled but have not tested the claim yourself. Why don't you test Expelled's claim using the scientific principal? Submit your research for publication and see what happens. "PS: The fundamental issue has been laid out, and it is in fact quite clear that complex coded text that effects algorithms is a reliable signature of design,..." All based on human design. "with literally trillions of cases in point. " All of human origin. "Of cases of known origin [all human], there are no credible counter instances." Translation: All human codes are known to be designed by humans. In short, you are basing your conclusions on data with zero degrees of freedom. From a statistical perspective, you don't even have correlation, let alone cause. Maybe if you could refer to a peer reviewed paper in a science journal that supports your point, we could discuss it logically and rationally.George Edwards_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

First of all, discovering evidence of life on another planet will require the use of our scientific knowledge/inventions. It will also redefine how we think about biology, depending on exactly what this evidence is. The fact that I had to explain this to you worries me, Mungy.Alicia Cartelli_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

KF, I've read statements by Rob Sheldon (and others) along those lines, so yes, I am aware that "life spores" from Earth could be floating through space. I'm not aware that anyone has actually detected them, though. Were any found in samples of Moon rock?daveS_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

DS, are you aware that, based on impacts and ejecta, life spores are expected to have reached as far as gas giant moons from Earth? KFkairosfocus_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Mung,
Science has yet to discover life on this planet. No reason to think it’s capable of discovering life on other planets.
Hmm. Well, let's say they discovered extremophile bacteria, complete with DNA, or something superficially resembling them, on Mars. Whatever you want to call it, people would find that very interesting.daveS_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

DaveS: ...maybe it wouldn’t be a scientific discovery. Precisely. Science has yet to discover life on this planet. No reason to think it's capable of discovering life on other planets. The question, What Is Life?, is still a question in search of an answer. Perhaps Alicia thinks that's an even dumber question than the one I asked. I wouldn't be surprised.Mung_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Alicia Cartelli: Quite possibly the dumbest question I’ve ever heard. Quite possibly the dumbest answer I’ve ever heard. Congrats Alicia.Mung_{December 19, 2015
December
12
Dec
19
19
2015
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply