Earth Life Likely Came from Mars

[Doctor Evo]

You know the basics, evidence should confirm, not stick as maybes

Actually, evidence should support, which is distinct in meaning from "confirm" or "prove." Those "maybes" are present in virtually all scientific analysis requiring the use of statistical methods (and you'd be hard-pressed to find any that don't require these methods).

 

[Doctor Evo]

I.F said they're not saying it right
You quoted him and held it for scientific illiteracy

It IS scientific illiteracy. Those "maybes" are woven into the very fabric of the scientific method. I apply the scientific method all the time. I teach it to students. To criticize the language used by these scientists/writers is to demonstrate a horrendous lack of understanding of science itself.

People outside of the field see uncertainty at any level as something which invalidates scientific conclusions, when in reality it can almost never be avoided, except in very, very special cases.

 

[Teelie]

A superhero message board is maybe not the place to try educating people either.

 

[Alex_Spider]

For the first time I agree with Doc Evo that science is based mostly on empirical data and hypothesis.

 

[KevanG]

A superhero message board is maybe not the place to try educating people either.

But then why do we have hundred page debates on things that few others care about if not to educate?

 

[Dr.]

In principle, the hypothesis could be confirmed by finding life on Mars that has the same genetic code.

 

[Teelie]

You know the basics, evidence should confirm, not stick as maybes
I.F said they're not saying it right
You quoted him and held it for scientific illiteracy

It IS scientific illiteracy. Those "maybes" are woven into the very fabric of the scientific method.

A superhero message board is maybe not the place to try educating people either.

But then why do we have hundred page debates on things that few others care about if not to educate?

I maybe think you missed it.

 

[The End]

Proof is in mathematics. Science doesn't state absolutes, always leaves the window open at even the most thoroughly tested and supported theories could be over-turned if the right data is found.

 

[Doctor Evo]

A superhero message board is maybe not the place to try educating people either.

That's probably true.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Doctor Evo isn't interested in educating anyone.

As for his last response to me, he's missed the point again, choosing instead to obsess over a strange straw man of my position. I'm not interested in the tedious task of correcting said straw men over and over. For an example of said straw men, just read this post in which I state that empirical scientific theories are NOT free from uncertainty and he responds "you seem to think empiricism is free from uncertainty!"

 

[terry78]

Like Krypton?

 

[warhorse78]

Damn, and I was hoping I had Saturn blood in me.

 

[Kryptonian Warrior]

Damn, and I was hoping I had Saturn blood in me.

I was hoping for a little of Uranus, myself.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Doctor Evo isn't interested in educating anyone.

As for his last response to me, he's missed the point again, choosing instead to obsess over a strange straw man of my position. I'm not interested in the tedious task of correcting said straw men over and over. For an example of said straw men, just read this post in which I state that empirical scientific theories are NOT free from uncertainty and he responds "you seem to think empiricism is free from uncertainty!"

Empiricism =/= "empirical scientific theories." It seems to me that the real problem here is that you don't actually understand what is being argued.

And you still haven't provided any valid rationale for your dismissal of these collective findings as support for the two previously mentioned hypotheses, nor have you justified your attack on the use of words expressing uncertainty. Our discussion regarding the latter point is crucial to the topic at-hand, and to reaching any meaningful conclusions regarding the former. It doesn't miss the point at ALL - it IS the point. There are no straw-men here. At this point you're trying to save face, hoping that the other posters here are too stupid to notice that your "points" have been systematically destroyed.

But here, let me make this as simple - and to-the-point - as I possibly can:

If you don't believe that support for hypotheses must be equivalent to certainty, why attack language expressing uncertainty in that context?

Is that direct enough for you? Because that's what I've been getting at this whole time.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Alright, I'll at least give you a closing comment.

My argument was pretty straight-forward. I'm not sure how you missed it, unless you think that all probabilities are equal probabilities. In which case my unicorn theory is doing pretty good in your eyes, and I hope to be able to footnote you in my latest submission to the local scientific journal. Its at least on the same level as the theory of macroevolution, which you in a non-sequitur suggested that I must be questioning, since I dared question the probabilities of a totally different scientific theory.

As for the charge that I'm trying to save face... that's poisoning the well. But you've been punching below the belt since the beginning of this conversation, and all you've really done above the belt is equivocation over a few terms and false accusations. And then, when you realize a person is starting to lose interest in that little game, you try to throw out that little accusation "you're just trying to save face," in an attempt to draw them back in for the same tedium again.

But I'm done with this conversation, and don't really give two unicorn toots what the rest of the posters take from that.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Alright, I'll at least give you a closing comment.

My argument was pretty straight-forward. I'm not sure how you missed it, unless you think that all probabilities are equal probabilities. In which case my unicorn theory is doing pretty good in your eyes, and I hope to be able to footnote you in my latest submission to the local scientific journal. Its at least on the same level as the theory of macroevolution, which you in a non-sequitur suggested that I must be questioning, since I dared question the probabilities of a totally different scientific theory.

As for the charge that I'm trying to save face... that's poisoning the well. But you've been punching below the belt since the beginning of this conversation, and all you've really done above the belt is equivocation over a few terms and false accusations. And then, when you realize a person is starting to lose interest in that little game, you try to throw out that little accusation "you're just trying to save face," in an attempt to draw them back in for the same tedium again.

But I'm done with this conversation, and don't really give two unicorn toots what the rest of the posters take from that.

I noticed that you didn't bother to answer my question. I also never once suggested that you question macroevolution. In fact, to suggest that you question macroevolution would be to credit you with consistency in your arguments and in your reasoning - something you have not demonstrated. That was the entire point of that comment.

Furthermore, by introducing the concept of unequal probabilities, you've necessitated the use of quantitative reasoning to support your argument - of which you have provided none thus far. Your argument isn't straightforward; it's an untenable mess.

Have fun with your unicorns.

 

[Pink Ranger]

A superhero message board is maybe not the place to try educating people either.

But where else am I supposed to learn that a two-time Oscar winner isn't good enough to play Batman?

 

[Teelie]

IMDB boards.

Just kidding, I'd rather tell you to find a porn board to post on. Less *******s there.

 

[Alex_Spider]

http://inhabitat.com/nasas-curiosity-rover-finds-water-on-mars/

Is there life on Mars? NASA’s Curiosity rover just discovered water on the red planet for the first time! The rover’s first soil analysis found that a scoop of the planet’s surface is composed of two percent water, leading scientists to question if the planet once supported life.

Published yesterday in the journal Science, an analysis of Curiosity’s discovery found the surface soil on Mars to not only contain water, but also carbon dioxide, oxygen and sulfur compounds. Since it landed in the Gale Crater on August 6, 2012, the rover has been combing the planet’s surface, taking and analyzing samples of rocks and soil on board its built-in analytical suite, transmitting its data to NASA. Designed to be the first rover to process samples of rock on Mars, Curiosity uses equipment like the Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) that processes and tests its findings with a gas chromotograph, mass spectrometer and tunable laser that evaluates the chemical compounds in surface rocks and soil, determining not just their content but also the percentage contained in each sample.

With Curiosity’s on-board systems, scientists have been able to glean the most detailed analysis of Martian soil to date. Although water was present, the scientists did not find significant organic materials in the planet’s surface soil. Curiosity has been collecting samples of dust, dirt and soil for the past year, but the findings of the experiments using SAM have inspired the scientists to dig further than the surface soil, and begin drilling into rocks to search for material containing organic compounds. Curiosity’s findings havehelped to direct future research, and the possibility of deriving water from the surface soil should astronauts land on Mars in the future is a promising one indeed.

Read more: NASA Curiosity Rover Finds Water on Mars | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

 

[Yowza]

There's so much conjecture that has gone on over the years and people are so tuned into technology now I wonder if human civilization has passed the point where even if there is some groundbreaking discovery it'll become obfuscated amidst all the rest of the information out there and get lost amidst a tangle of different narratives and amalgamate into different trending clickbait informational trapdoors that will remove any merit to originally sourced kernals of truth therein...

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Wasn't this thread started by a poster that was peddling or defending the idea that the Catholic Church was butchering toddlers and eating them or some such?

 

[Perfect Cell]

It sure was.

 

[Dr.]

After seeing recent photos from Mars online, I don't think there was life in Mars. Maybe some bacteria or like small worms. But nothing something similar to humans or animals with bones. The photos released show that Mars is basically a wasteland. Just piles of rocks, sands and dusts. And if there were any advanced civilization or at least animals like mammals/birds living in Mars in the past, there would have been some evidence/remnants left. Or maybe its just buried under or the bones already turned into dusts, but there's really nothing there, based from the photos which is kinda sad. Space is a lonely place.

Life may have developed on Mars around 3.8 billion years ago (roughly the same time as Earth) when there was liquid surface water and a more substantial atmosphere. But not long after this period, something happened - possibly a catastrophic meteor impact. This caused Mars to lose its protective magnetic field and, in turn, most of its atmosphere and liquid water. Thus, and if Earth biology is any indication, there simply wasn’t enough time for hypothetical Martian microbes to evolve into more complex forms. Hardy microbial life (so-called “extremophiles”) might still exist on Mars or be in a dormant state of “suspended animation.” But no one is expecting to find fossilized bones or shells on Mars because the critters who would leave such remnants never had a chance to exist.

“Panspermia” (the original topic of this thread) is unlikely - though it can’t be entirely ruled out. But if Martian life seeded Earth, this would be of the microscopic variety. And the bulk of evolution, as we know it, would have occurred here. IOW, it would not be the case that (say) a breeding pair of Martian octopuses - transported via asteroid - was the main source of life on Earth.

 

[C. Lee]

Your great grand pa says Hi.