We may all be Martians: New research supports theory that life started on Mars

Aug 28, 2013
Mars. Image: NASA

New evidence has emerged which supports the long-debated theory that life on Earth may have started on Mars.

Professor Steven Benner will tell geochemists gathering today (Thursday 29 Aug) at the annual Goldschmidt conference that an oxidized mineral form of the element molybdenum, which may have been crucial to the , could only have been available on the surface of Mars and not on Earth. "In addition", said Professor Benner "recent studies show that these conditions, suitable for the origin of life, may still exist on Mars."

"It's only when molybdenum becomes highly oxidized that it is able to influence how early life formed," explains Professor Benner, from The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology in the USA. "This form of molybdenum couldn't have been available on Earth at the time life first began, because three billion years ago the surface of the Earth had very little oxygen, but Mars did. It's yet another piece of evidence which makes it more likely life came to Earth on a Martian meteorite, rather than starting on this planet."

The research Professor Benner will present at the Goldschmidt conference tackles two of the paradoxes which make it difficult for scientists to understand how life could have started on Earth.

The first is dubbed by Professor Benner as the 'tar paradox'. All living things are made of , but if you add energy such as heat or light to and leave them to themselves, they don't create life. Instead, they turn into something more like tar, oil or asphalt.

"Certain elements seem able to control the propensity of organic materials to turn into tar, particularly and molybdenum, so we believe that minerals containing both were fundamental to life first starting," says Professor Benner. "Analysis of a Martian meteorite recently showed that there was boron on Mars; we now believe that the oxidized form of molybdenum was there too."

The second paradox is that life would have struggled to start on the early Earth because it was likely to have been totally covered by water. Not only would this have prevented sufficient concentrations of boron forming – it's currently only found in very dry places like Death Valley – but water is corrosive to RNA, which scientists believe was the first genetic molecule to appear. Although there was water on Mars, it covered much smaller areas than on early Earth.

"The evidence seems to be building that we are actually all Martians; that life started on Mars and came to Earth on a rock," says Professor Benner. "It's lucky that we ended up here nevertheless, as certainly Earth has been the better of the two planets for sustaining . If our hypothetical Martian ancestors had remained on Mars, there might not have been a story to tell."

Explore further: NASA deep-space rocket, SLS, to launch in 2018

More information: goldschmidt.info/2013/

Provided by European Association of Geochemistry

3.9 /5 (112 votes)

Related Stories

Is life on Mars related to life on Earth?

Jul 31, 2013

The idea that there is life on other worlds is humbling and exciting, and finding life on another world would change everything. This has been a driving force for scientists for decades. We find life wherever ...

Moroccan desert meteorite delivers Martian secrets

Oct 11, 2012

(Phys.org)—A meteorite that landed in the Moroccan desert 14 months ago is providing more information about Mars, the planet where it originated. University of Alberta researcher Chris Herd helped in the ...

Organic carbon from Mars, but not biological

May 24, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Molecules containing large chains of carbon and hydrogen--the building blocks of all life on Earth--have been the targets of missions to Mars from Viking to the present day. While these molecules ...

Studying meteorites may reveal Mars' secrets of life

May 01, 2013

In an effort to determine if conditions were ever right on Mars to sustain life, a team of scientists, including a Michigan State University professor, has examined a meteorite that formed on the red planet ...

Recommended for you

Light of life

19 hours ago

A fluorescent microscopic view of cells from a type of bone cancer, being studied for a future trip to deep space – aiming to sharpen our understanding of the hazardous radiation prevailing out there.

Local model better describes lunar gravity

Aug 27, 2014

Two satellites orbiting the Moon as a part of NASA's Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission have been mapping its inner structure by measuring subtle shifts in the pull of gravity on the ...

User comments : 242

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Osiris1
1 / 5 (15) Aug 28, 2013
Wonder if Martians ever evolved intelligent life..........???
PoppaJ
3 / 5 (17) Aug 28, 2013
Reminds me of the argument that humans could never have figured out how to stack blocks without alien intervention. Sorry to say that molybdenum oxidizes under more circumstances than just oxygen atmosphere.
jsdarkdestruction
3.3 / 5 (17) Aug 28, 2013
Interesting, but this article sounds like a lot of simplification of the arguments that doesn't cover a lot of possibilities for how life starting on earth could of overcame these difficulties.
sirchick
2 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2013
How can they find strong enough evidence to suggest we came from a rock from mars...any evidence to suggest is probably long gone.

However the idea is entirely possible that it could of happened, and likely the odds are quite high too during early time of the solar system when rocks were flying every where. (Flying not really being the correct word when it comes to space).
kelman66
2.5 / 5 (15) Aug 28, 2013
This phenomenon is called Panspermia.
Neat topic.
Cheers
Kentos1
1 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2013
Oh this I've been waiting for. -One-
Humpty
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 28, 2013
Yeah I remember the meteor impact well.....

My ears are still ringing, and I get a total cunt of a head ache.

Interplanetary concussion does that.
Gmr
2.9 / 5 (18) Aug 28, 2013
It seems highly speculative at best. "You get tar or asphalt." Just applying heat and that's it, maybe. I'd like to see the same thing run with day-night cycles of heat and light, as well as tidal agitation. It seems like quite a leap, especially when we don't know the required conditions for life because we're still trying to figure them out through experiment.

It jumps straight from "there are issues" to "Mars!" A bit too far fetched for me to accept their conclusions outright.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 28, 2013
Well, aren't we lucky that our "rock" landed in the right place instead of continuing into, let's say, the SUN!!

This part is a little inaccurate. - "The evidence seems to be building that we are actually all Martians; that life started on Mars and came to Earth on a rock," says Professor Benner.
He should have said that the 'molecules' that were necessary to life started on Mars and just happened to locate on that particular rock before it left Mars bound for Earth.

barakn
3.2 / 5 (12) Aug 28, 2013
The second paradox is that life would have struggled to start on the early Earth because it was likely to have been totally covered by water.
It's sad when scientists are unaware of previous papers directly related to their work. Papers such as that of Ushikubo et al 2008, "Lithium in Jack Hills zircons: Evidence for extensive weathering of Earth's earliest crust" http://www.geolog...008.pdf, which offers evidence not only of continental crust 4,348 million years ago but of weathering of said crust. There very well may have been exposed land the whole time. Not that this rules out a Martian origin of life, but it certainly doesn't rule out Earth.
BAKOON
2.3 / 5 (19) Aug 28, 2013
He should have said that the 'molecules' that were necessary to life started on Mars and just happened to locate on that particular rock before it left Mars bound for Earth.
Based on what? Talking out your ass again?
Virtual Mage
1 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2013
From the link above with thanks to barakn (conclusion): The much higher Li concentration in Jack Hills zircons compared to those of zircons from mantle-derived magmas suggests that the Jack Hills zircons crystallized in evolved magmas or magmas contaminated with surface material. The highly variable δ7 Li in Jack Hills zircons can be explained as the result of aqueous alteration at the surface of the Earth. Extremely low δ7 Li observed in zircons as old as 4300 Ma requires a low δ7 Li parental magma, implying the magmatic recycling of weathered crust. Thus, Li compositions of Jack Hills zircons support the existence of chemically differentiated and extensive, weathered crust by at least 4300 Ma. (Ma=Megaannum). I recall Physorg posted this as a geologically significant find some time ago.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2013
One questionable part of this conclusion is: Did life originate on the surface? I find that not such a foregone conclusion.

How can they find strong enough evidence to suggest we came from a rock from mars...any evidence to suggest is probably long gone.

There is the occasional find of mars material on Earth. If we could find one and
- date it to before life appeared on Earth
- break it up and see some form of life (precursor) chemistry inside that is not the result of contamination

Then a case for a Martian origin of life could be made.

Not only would this have prevented sufficient concentrations of boron forming

Smokers (an volcanic activity in general) seem a pretty concentrated source of a lot of minerals. That water dilutes stuff does not mean that automatically all things that are at the bottom of the ocean are disperesed homogeneously throughout the globe - especially if the source keeps on spewing it forth at a rate greater than can be carried away.

hangman04
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 29, 2013
Wonder if Martians ever evolved intelligent life..........???


They did after which they managed to ascend to non-corporeal lifeforms :).
alfie_null
1.5 / 5 (4) Aug 29, 2013
Well, aren't we lucky that our "rock" landed in the right place instead of continuing into, let's say, the SUN!!

Elliptic orbit around the Sun (i.e. intersects Earth's orbit), that's not so eccentric as to be pointed directly at the Sun. Maybe not so lucky.
verkle
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 29, 2013
Superb hogwash.

freethinking
1 / 5 (26) Aug 29, 2013
Yup, cant get live to start on Earth, so it must have started on Mars.
Atheists have a lot of faith..... If you wait a really long time, something can come from nothing....if you wait a really really really long time, this something can become a living thing.....if you wait a really really really really really really long time this living thing can float in space then land on earth.....if you wait a really really really really really really long time, this living thing can become human.....

makes you wonder why atheists are so mad at this film: http://www.youtub...dded#t=0
Gmr
2.6 / 5 (17) Aug 29, 2013
Freethinking,
Thinking that life has a chemical beginning is only threatening and "atheist" to biblical literalists. I'd hate to think you were insulting countless numbers of reasonable and yet religious people in this attempt to foment the old "lukewarm christian" false dichotomy.
freethinking
1.3 / 5 (27) Aug 29, 2013
GMR, why is it insulting anyone by mentioning the truth of what they believe.

Evolutionists believe: Something came from nothing, but it took a long time.
Something became a living single cell, but it took a long time.
A living single cell became every creature ever to exist, but it took a long time.

I just add a very a lot, because it takes a very, very, very very very long time for each unobservable, unprovable step.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 29, 2013
Luke warm Christians, are insulted by the bible, not me..... because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

BTW, I don't use the term Christian any more..... too meaningless these days and was used only once in the Bible and in a derogatory way.
Gmr
2.7 / 5 (19) Aug 29, 2013
Thats what I figured. Biblical literalist combined with some evangelical zeal. I'm guessing newly converted, recovering born again, or newly energized by latent issues with homosexuality and therefore lashing out at any institution antithetical to calling those desires "bad."
DeadCorpse
2.5 / 5 (16) Aug 29, 2013
Can I put "Resident Alien- Martian" in the next Census?

On a more serious note, Panspermia is an interesting idea. But couldn't it just as easily have been "seeded" on Mars by the same source that could have "seeded" it here? Or that the early collision between Earth 1 and some other planetoid, the event that theoretically created our Moon, tossed some of our carbonaceous material off towards Mars?

What if, and I'm not the first to posit this, anywhere Life can exist... It will exist? I like that idea, but readily admit am heavily biased and short on supporting data.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (24) Aug 29, 2013
GMR, your hate filled homophobia and Chistaphobia coming out again.
Typical Hypocritical Progressives, SAYING they support homosexuals, yet using Homosexual's as a slur.
Typical Hypocritical Progressive, SAYING they are open minded, but insulting those that disagree with their unquestionable Orthodoxy.

GMR, are you feeling guilty about something? The hate that is seething out of you implies a guilty mind. There is a way to get rid of your guilt and shame, to get rid of your hate
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 29, 2013
There is a way to get rid of your guilt and shame, to get rid of your hate


Become an atheist?
Gmr
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2013
I was wondering if that would set you off.

I've no problem with christians or anyone and what they believe.

Zealots, however, are another matter.

The lukewarm remark was one gauge. For a zealot, it isn't enough to be similarly aligned. The response to the dig at biblical literalism is another. That essentially says that no discussion will have any meaning regardless of logic, because the filter of bible-safe-only precludes much of modern thought.

I'll admit to button mashing, and say that the remark on homosexuality was a step too far. I've seen plenty of cases where a new zealot will pursue ardently the flaws they perceive in themselves through the proxy of others. Homosexuality isn't a flaw, by the by. Its normal circuitry. It has just gotten a lot of focal abuse due to, partly, holy book literalists and zealots.
rug
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2013
There he goes again, posting religion nonsense on a science site. Free just leave everyone alone and go join your own holier than thou group. I think Nik might want to join.
rug
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 29, 2013
To get back on topic. I like the idea, but until we find life or evidence of past life on Mars I think the whole idea is mute. Something to think about while it's being searched for though.
Gmr
2.6 / 5 (15) Aug 29, 2013
Honestly, I'd like to see more lab work done on prebiotic conditions. Something like a long running Abiosphere large scale laboratory, only interacted with via robotics. Give us a dual shot at examining prebiotic scenarios, configuring tests to detect them, and the effectiveness of sterilization procedures on landing robot probes.
rug
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2013
Good call, that sounds like a great idea.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (25) Aug 29, 2013
Well, in any case, Adam and and his first wife, Lilith could not have been created on an Earth that was in constant geological and atmospheric upheaval even if there was an isolated Garden of Eden somewhere. Such upheaval could not have developed and sustained even the simplest microbe in, on or under the early Earth. The Bible doesn't really explain how and of what the first life forms on Earth were formed.
But it isn't unseemly that after the Earth's upheaval died down considerably, that a rock (well supplied with the right ingredients for life) from a much less geologically agitated Mars could have been thrown into a trajectory towards Earth by the impact of a huge rock that smashed into Mars...possibly a body from the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Half of Mars is loaded with such craters.
After landing on Earth, God the Creator would naturally use such materials to fashion the first life on Earth and then let evolution take its course. Creative science begins.
kochevnik
2.2 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2013
Thinking that life has a chemical beginning is only threatening and "atheist" to biblical literalists. I'd hate to think you were insulting countless numbers of reasonable and yet religious people in this attempt to foment the old "lukewarm christian" false dichotomy.
No matter. Freetard's 'thinking' consists of begging his questions as a dog chases it's tail. Perhaps he will find the film Begotten interesting, which embellishes his circular "thinking":

"God disembowels himself with a straight razor. The spirit-like Mother Earth emerges, venturing into a bleak, barren landscape. Twitching and cowering, the Son Of Earth is set upon by faceless cannibals."
rug
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 29, 2013
obama_socks - another (same one?) religious nut posting on a science website. Will these people ever learn?
Gmr
2.6 / 5 (17) Aug 29, 2013
*Sigh*
Though I might disagree vehemently with the core principles of ecclesiastcal exclusiveism and exclusionism that freethinking appears to espouse, I cannot condone or ignore the "tard" being applied to belittle anybody. My son, my nephew, and two of my friends' children are developmentally disabled.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (22) Aug 29, 2013
Remember with Progressives you need to define each and every word. GMR define zealot and the word normal?

Also I love how you say you have no problems with Christians. What you mean to say is you have not problem with luke warm Christians or Christians who don't say what they believe.

BTW I agree and commend you for the Tard comment.
JRi
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2013
I think it is time to move on from speculation to hard facts. We have two functioning rovers on mars plus plans to send more. They need to find some clear evidence of life that exists or has existed there.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (23) Aug 29, 2013
The literal definition of "firmament" is the sky or the Heavens. In Genesis1: 1 and 2, "in the beginning, God created the Heavens (sky) and the Earth. The Earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the Deep."

"Without form and void", and darkness of the Deep mean that in that time, Earth was a watery world where the previous geological upheavals caused the gases within the hot Earth to rise and form clouds. And subsequently, the clouds rained on the Earth to inundate the Earth with water. When the Spirit of God moved across the Earth, all He saw was water, and darkness was everywhere because He had not yet created the Sun or the Moon.

In Genesis1: 3, 4, and 5, God sets the Earth spinning to form day and night. But the Earth's spin was only in preparation for God's creation of the Sun and the Moon which came later. This is a logical procession of events. The Light emanated from God Himself since there were no other light sources.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (24) Aug 29, 2013
Those who have no understanding of Genesis1: 3,4, and 5 are under the impression that there could not have been any light since the Sun, Moon and stars were not created at that time. And that would be true under the usual circumstances. BUT, they do not understand that God Himself is Light from a pure form of Energy and Intelligence. When God said, "Let there be Light", the light emanated from His Own energy, and it was enough to light up the world.
In Genesis1: 9 and 10, God divides the waters from the land to bring forth dry land - long before the land began to break up into continents and islands.

In Gen1: 11 and 12, God creates the seeds to grow grasses and fruit trees. It is at this time that He also creates the one-celled animals which will naturally evolve into the higher life forms. In this time span, it is the Light that emanates from God that causes the trees and grasses to grow since there is still no Sun or Moon.
Gmr
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2013
Zealot: a person unwilling or unable to seek consensus or compromise; absolutist, specifically with regard to assumable ideals or nonendemic characteristics.

And you would be correct in that I prefer lukewarn christians. I'm able to be friends with many of them because that lukewarm characteristic allows them to retain their personal morality without mandating I accept and follow it as a contingency of interaction.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (23) Aug 29, 2013
In Genesis1: 14 through 19, God creates the Sun, Moon and stars to provide light for all the planets. after which the Light emanating from God is no longer required.
Most people, even some adherents to religions tend to believe that it is certain molecules in the correct proportions and under optimum conditions that provided the building blocks for life forms, and that is all that is required. Of course, it is true that the Sun provides the necessities for continuous growth. But in the Beginning, it was the Light from God that was the necessary ingredient for the propagation of the first life forms on Earth when there were still no Sun, Moon and stars.

The life forms on Earth were already here, long before God created Adam, the first man. Everything was in preparation for that moment.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (24) Aug 29, 2013
Zealot: a person unwilling or unable to seek consensus or compromise; absolutist, specifically with regard to assumable ideals or nonendemic characteristics.

And you would be correct in that I prefer lukewarn christians. I'm able to be friends with many of them because that lukewarm characteristic allows them to retain their personal morality without mandating I accept and follow it as a contingency of interaction.
-Gmr

Nice definition of Zealot. Those who choose to push their religionist, antireligionist or atheistic values and beliefs on others who don't want it should look to themselves and examine their own motives for such zealotry. The radical followers of the religion of Islam are far worse than even the most fundamental of Christians, because Islamists will gladly kill you in the belief that you are their enemy and their god wills it.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (24) Aug 29, 2013
obama_socks - another (same one?) religious nut posting on a science website. Will these people ever learn?
-rug

Your knee-jerk reaction to my post indicates that you haven't read it and understood its implications. You apparently have lost any comprehension skills that you may have had at one time, and instead, choose to back up into a corner and let loose with stupid ad hominems. That IS zealotry plus intolerance to the opinions of others unless their opinions mimic your own.

If you had bothered to read my posts, the entirety of which shows the closeness of Science AND Creation, you should have noticed that I was not inducing anyone toward MY beliefs, but to INFORM of what really happened.

Your apparent belief that life only came from a bunch of chemicals and water and nothing else is yours to enjoy.
I gave my information freely to show that science is a subset of Creation. If it doesn't work for you, it's no skin off my nose. :)
kochevnik
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2013
*Sigh*
Though I might disagree vehemently with the core principles of ecclesiastcal exclusiveism and exclusionism that freethinking appears to espouse, I cannot condone or ignore the "tard" being applied to belittle anybody. My son, my nephew, and two of my friends' children are developmentally disabled.

Unfortunately for your relatives the word 'tard' has been hijacked and usurped by the ocean of conservatives spilling over from Dumbfuckistan. Indeed the developmentally disabled seem much brighter and livelier than these willful retards who seek to insult your relatives by debasing themselves and all around them. If anyone should be concerned about willful retardation it should be you, Just as 'gay' can no longer be used freely as an expression of joy, so conservatives have killed the meaning of 'retard' as it's been hijacked for drooling servants of bankers and Wall Street. Note Wall Street began by trading slaves. By doing so they debased the meaning of the word 'stock'
rug
2.8 / 5 (20) Aug 29, 2013
This is a science website, therefor religion has no place here. It's that simple.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 29, 2013
@kochevnik

You do yourself a disservice by using and applying the "tard" moniker to those commenters whose comments you are not in agreement with. You are following in the footsteps of Vendicar and theghostofotto and its sockpuppets when you wreck your own image by mimicking their idiocy. Do you wish to turn yourself into a "joke" or a "clown" also? As a Russian national, you must surely have a good sense of propriety and the wisdom to avoid the self-imposed mark of a head clown of Clown City that is prevalent in the comments from VD and Ghost. That is entirely up to you, but if you continue with using "tard" as an insult, it tends to lower one's opinion of Russians to quite a degree.
Gmr
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2013

Nice definition of Zealot. Those who choose to push their religionist, antireligionist or atheistic values and beliefs on others who don't want it should look to themselves and examine their own motives for such zealotry. The radical followers of the religion of Islam are far worse than even the most fundamental of Christians, because Islamists will gladly kill you in the belief that you are their enemy and their god wills it.


I have seen similar bloodthirstiness in most quarters. Zealotry is not measured in degrees precisely because it is a measure of acceptance and compromise at zero. One can be a zealous patriot or nationalist or adherent or sectarian. Personal willingness to violate local laws to enforce this on others is another metric.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2013
@kochevnik

You do yourself a disservice by using and applying the "tard" moniker to those commenters whose comments you are not in agreement with.
Actually willfully retarded conservatives are the ones (do I dare write people?) doing society a disservice by embracing totalitarianism and enacting rules written down by long-dead magic-mushroom addicts. If they would adopt a word to describe themselves ACCURATELY, which 'conservative' doesn't, they would do society a service. However that's not on their agenda

But then, socks, you have no problem embracing mediocrity
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 29, 2013
@Gmr

The Laws in the U.S. are assumed to be within the framework of information for most citizens if not all. Zealotry or lack of it is not a part of the U.S. Constitutional Laws unless it leads to the infringement of the civil and human rights of one citizen or group over another. Spoken zealotry is not considered an infringement of these rights, as the citizen has the right to ignore the zealot or to leave his/her presence. As a last resort, the citizen has the option of involving law enforcers if the citizen suspects an animosity that might lead to physical harm.

But in the long run, the zealot also has the right to be heard, as long as in his/her zeal, he or she is not bothersome to others. I have found that it is best to stay out of earshot of such people if I don't wish to hear them. I will just move on to another area. That is something which I have done in D.C. in the presence of a small rally of the American Communist Party who happened to gather near the spot where I was at
rug
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 29, 2013
And in the US I have every right tell you to shut the hell up!
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (23) Aug 29, 2013
@kochevnik

You do yourself a disservice by using and applying the "tard" moniker to those commenters whose comments you are not in agreement with.
Actually willfully retarded conservatives are the ones (do I dare write people?) doing society a disservice by embracing totalitarianism and enacting rules written down by long-dead magic-mushroom addicts. If they would adopt a word to describe themselves ACCURATELY, which 'conservative' doesn't, they would do society a service. However that's not on their agenda

But then, socks, you have no problem embracing mediocrity
-koch

Ah, but I do NOT embrace mediocrity of any type, which is why I am a Conservative, and why I have only disdain for the Obama regime. You do not understand the true values and beliefs of the American Conservative movement. Your hatred of bankers, Jews and Wall Street has created in your mind that Conservatives would enjoy the domination of a Totalitarian gov't.

You are a victim of propaganda.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 29, 2013
OK GMR I hope you are not a Zealot: a person unwilling or unable to seek consensus or compromise; absolutist, specifically with regard to assumable ideals or nonendemic characteristics

So are you willing to allow Creationism to be taught alongside evolution? BTW, I have no problem with evolution being taught as long as it can be questioned.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 29, 2013
Koch, your hatred for those with mental and physical handicaps is clear.

No one (conservative or progressive) should use tard or retard against anyone as a slur. It is demeaning to a group of individuals who have very little voice or power.
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 29, 2013
rug, In the USA I have every right (for now) to keep on speaking no matter how hard a Progressive shouts.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 29, 2013
Back to the topic:

"Professor Steven Benner will tell geochemists gathering today (Thursday 29 Aug) at the annual Goldschmidt conference that an oxidized mineral form of the element molybdenum, which may have been crucial to the origin of life, could only have been available on the surface of Mars and not on Earth."

I'm not particularly happy with this assumption. The words, "which MAY have been crucial to the origin of life" is much too vague and ambiguous. I would have preferred a concrete statement that the oxidized mineral form of molybdenum IS crucial. This is an indication that the certainty is not there.

Why is it that scientists cannot COMMIT themselves to a stated proposition, rather than using ambiguous terms? Don't they have enough concrete evidence for their theory?

Oh, that's right. It is still ONLY a theory.
Requiem
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 29, 2013
*Sigh*
Though I might disagree vehemently with the core principles of ecclesiastcal exclusiveism and exclusionism that freethinking appears to espouse, I cannot condone or ignore the "tard" being applied to belittle anybody. My son, my nephew, and two of my friends' children are developmentally disabled.


I'm sorry, I'm glad you are here doing what you do, but this is just ridiculous. You may as well be telling people not to insult the prophet mohammed. I agree in general with everything you say, but the way you've been trotting this out every chance you get recently is indeed completely hypocritical regarding what you espouse. Please do not attempt to justify it in response, I know if you spend some time thinking about it you'll realize I'm right.

Sincerely,
The guy with asperger's
Requiem
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2013
And you would be correct in that I prefer lukewarn christians. I'm able to be friends with many of them because that lukewarm characteristic allows them to retain their personal morality without mandating I accept and follow it as a contingency of interaction.


Above, I have provided you with a visual aid while you think about it.
Gmr
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2013

I'm sorry, I'm glad you are here doing what you do, but this is just ridiculous. You may as well be telling people not to insult the prophet mohammed. I agree in general with everything you say, but the way you've been trotting this out every chance you get recently is indeed completely hypocritical regarding what you espouse. Please do not attempt to justify it in response, I know if you spend some time thinking about it you'll realize I'm right.

Sincerely,
The guy with asperger's


So you are telling me not to do what you are doing right now. And as an adult who is neurotypical enough to form a theory of mind, I can say you are luckier than the people in my life who will never be able to live on their own. I'm pointing out that my children are real living people whom I will have to discuss why people call them names because they are different. I'm pointing it out because I don't think its right. Nobody has to explain to the prophet why people jeer and make fun.
Gmr
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2013
OK GMR I hope you are not a Zealot: a person unwilling or unable to seek consensus or compromise; absolutist, specifically with regard to assumable ideals or nonendemic characteristics

So are you willing to allow Creationism to be taught alongside evolution? BTW, I have no problem with evolution being taught as long as it can be questioned.


If creationism met the threshhold set for science then it could be taught as a science. Without that criteria, you open the door to electric and plasma universe concepts being given equal weight to theories that actually have predictive value.

I don't think it would be fair to carve out an exemption just for creationism.
Gmr
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2013
And you would be correct in that I prefer lukewarn christians. I'm able to be friends with many of them because that lukewarm characteristic allows them to retain their personal morality without mandating I accept and follow it as a contingency of interaction.


Above, I have provided you with a visual aid while you think about it.


I do not see anything you are referring to. Did you attach a link or image tag?
rug
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 29, 2013
rug, In the USA I have every right (for now) to keep on speaking no matter how hard a Progressive shouts.

And I still have every right to say you are a dumbass and have no business on a science site.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 29, 2013
@Gmr

Of course picking on helpless people and making fun of their handicap is not right. It is an act of intolerance and bias, and is clearly an indication of a misplaced superiority complex and a false feeling of empowerment. It even happens among the very young at times.

http://www.livele...77453339
Gmr
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2013
obama_socks,
In trying to adjust the behaviors we have to be wary of the alien, fearful of the unusual, ill, injured and deformed, we fight against nature.

It is tribalism to create ingroups and outgroups, primate nature to chase off the abnormal.

It is profoundly human to ignore the chimp in the corner of your mind when it hoots in derision or howls in anger, shrieks in terror or recoils in disgust.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 29, 2013
@rug

Ad hominem attacks such as you are fond of making also have no business on a science website. It is people like you who get their kicks from name calling and making fun of people like Gmr's children. You personally can get away with it here because this is the internet, But try it offline and eventually you will truly piss off someone and you will find yourself on the ground and not being able to get up.
rug
1.9 / 5 (17) Aug 29, 2013
@obama_socks
I never call people names for any reason unless they are trying to preach where they have no business preaching. (Schools, town halls, my front door, science conventions, etc) Want to preach? Fine, go to a church or find a group of people that are willing to listen.

Even in person I would call you or anyone else a dumbass that tries to preach to me. I don't go to a church or a bible club and start talking science. All I expect is the same courtesy. The day I start talking about science in one of these locations I would expect to be called a dumbass and kicked out.

FYI last time someone tried to take me down they ended up in the hospital.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 29, 2013
@Gmr

I don't believe in "tribalism". I believe in individuals who may or may not want to form a group out of a need for security or friendship. But in the end, it is the individual who has to own up to their respective fears, strengths or lack of, and the consequences of each one's decisions.

Your love and concern for your loved ones is commendable and is something that puts you on a higher level than the average human - mainly because you care so deeply. Even though you don't believe in God, you are blessed for having the fortitude and strength to undergo what you are going through. Never be faint of heart, but keep the faith and you will prevail along with your children.
BAKOON
2 / 5 (16) Aug 29, 2013
Obama_socks, regarding your theories on hell, will the giant glass martians be spared from Satan's flames?
Gmr
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 29, 2013
obama_socks, I don't think I'm any different than anyone else on this site. Even as much as I pick on Nik, while I know it isn't right, I don't really dislike him. Infuriating, frustrating, evasive, sure - but I don't think any of us hasn't done something similar at some point. All of us are really likable if you get past the forest of labels and groups and affiliations we pile around ourselves for us and others.

All of us are capable of making bad choices, so we really ought to be ready to forgive if we expect the same in return.
Huns
1.4 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2013
It sounds less likely than there being some molybdenum in an asteroid, or there being some other chemical process that doesn't require Martian molybdenum to get organic chemicals to eventually form life.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 29, 2013
@rug
In my previous posts here, I tried to collate the first few paragraphs of the O.T. in Genesis with the science that would have had to be involved for such miraculous feats to be accomplished. Matter and energy were both present in the formations of the planets, the Sun and other stars, not magic. But an Intelligence was also involved and if you read my posts again, you will see that each sequence of events was highly methodical and logical.

It is by pure method and logic that the Universe came to be. And in our little corner of our galaxy, the grand experiment began.
Thought, the mind, intelligence, the will - all had a part in the formation of this miracle where we live. If you have heard the phrase, "Mind over matter", it is a faithful rendition or analogy of what occurred all those years ago.
Nature is passive, as God is passive. Nature builds and destroys and God watches it happen and does not intervene for the most part. We humans are allowed to make mistakes and we do that
BAKOON
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2013
Yeah god is totally passive until someone pisses YOU off and then he blows up the sun. Go away.
rug
2 / 5 (16) Aug 29, 2013
So you are trying to preach intelligent design? Still religion...so....DUMBASS. Now if you would like to have a real science discussion where religion does not play into it fine. I would be happy to do that. If you really want to talk about genesis and science then go post on an intelligent design site. If you really want to try and convert me to your beliefs PM me and we can discuses it.

Like I've tried to explain, I don't have an issue talking about religion, just in the right setting. A science site is not the right setting.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 29, 2013
I can't imagine Molybdenum being too rare an element on Earth, but I'm not a chemist. I know that the supply of gold in the Earth is finite and eventually will be hard to find. Gold is said to be a necessary element for life, but in very tiny quantities. The article doesn't mention how much Molybdenum is needed to form and sustain life.
BAKOON
2 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2013
Gold is said to be a necessary element for life, but in very tiny quantities.
Holy shit no it isn't you jackass.
rug
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2013
I can't imagine Molybdenum being too rare an element on Earth, but I'm not a chemist. I know that the supply of gold in the Earth is finite and eventually will be hard to find. Gold is said to be a necessary element for life, but in very tiny quantities. The article doesn't mention how much Molybdenum is needed to form and sustain life.


I don't remember gold being listed as one of the elements needed for life. So I tried to find someplace that said that was the case and wasn't able to find one. Needed for life as we know it yes, because of technology but I'm doubtful it's needed for life to get started.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 29, 2013
@rug
The last thread that concerned religion was about Christian women who were forgotten. I think all the Physorg atheists were there to put down Christianity regardless of the religious topic.
In the future, you atheists should avoid those Physorg threads where the topic is religion and stick to the ones that only deal with science.
Of course, you atheists and anti-religionists can't stay out of religious threads because it is obviously your intention to ruin those threads so that we religionists can't enjoy our discussions in them. So what do you people prefer - religionists talking religion in a science thread? Or are you willing to stay out of the religious threads or STFU? In exchange, speaking for myself, I will not talk religion in any science thread as long as none of you go into religious threads and try to talk atheistic bullshit in there.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 29, 2013
Gold is said to be a necessary element for life, but in very tiny quantities.
Holy shit no it isn't you jackass.


Oh yes it is.
That includes you too, BAKOON/BABOON/Theghostofblotto1923
rug
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 29, 2013
That was not a religion thread even though it had Christian in the name. That article was a scientific study of the past. Therefore it was science. The day a religious article shows up on this site is the day I stop coming here.

BTW - I never said I was an atheist. You have no idea what I believe. All I've ever said is not on a science site.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2013
The words, "which MAY have been crucial to the origin of life" is much too vague and ambiguous. I would have preferred a concrete statement that the oxidized mineral form of molybdenum IS crucial.


That's the way science works. I'm not knocking your religion, I believe everyone should be allowed freedom of conscience. Religion is where certainties are declared beyond dispute.

In science nothing is CERTAIN beyond ALL doubt. We can only claim degrees of certainty. What is a unlikely idea, maybe idea, probably idea, most probably idea, etc. The way science works is ya accept what best fits the observed reality. It seeks the best evidence, balances why's and why not's and makes a value judgment.

Religion deals with CERTAINTIES. Ultimate truths. It doesn't ask to be challenged with objective empirical tests or proofs.

Oh, that's right. It is still ONLY a theory.


A tested theory is much closer to reality than an untested myth. Ask for CERTAIN truth,, that's in churches.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 29, 2013
Gold is said to be a necessary element for life, but in very tiny quantities.
Holy shit no it isn't you jackass.


Oh yes it is.
That includes you too, BAKOON/BABOON/Theghostofblotto1923


http://en.wikiped...man_body

Gold can be found in the human body, but in trace amounts. While it's not necessary to maintain health, it is just one of the many elements that make up the human body.
rug
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 29, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body

Gold can be found in the human body, but in trace amounts. While it's not necessary to maintain health, it is just one of the many elements that make up the human body.


Sure it's found in the human body. Just about every element we come in contact with can be found in the human body. That is why mercury can be dangerous to play with. We absorb all kinds of stuff we don't need.
Requiem
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2013
And you would be correct in that I prefer lukewarn christians. I'm able to be friends with many of them because that lukewarm characteristic allows them to retain their personal morality without mandating I accept and follow it as a contingency of interaction.


Above, I have provided you with a visual aid while you think about it.


I do not see anything you are referring to. Did you attach a link or image tag?


Whoosh. It's ok.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 29, 2013
@Q-Star

You said, "Religion is where certainties are declared beyond dispute."

I beg to differ. Not all Christian religions are so sacrosanct that there is no room for discussion, debate and questions. The Bible is always open to review. I myself have reviewed many books of the Bible and have questioned certain passages as to their validity. That's what is great about the Bible. It is a living, breathing document, much like the U.S.Constitution. It's meanings can be misinterpreted and misunderstood, and therefore, it is necessary to review it constantly to get the full benefits and to find the truth, however elusive.

BTW, I am not a member of any particular organized Christian religion.
Gmr
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2013
Whoosh. It's ok.


I'm sorry; I appear to have missed something entirely.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (20) Aug 29, 2013
I have said before in another thread, that science is ever-changing. A discovery one day can be disregarded another day and declared invalid. That is the beauty of science - the joy is in the pursuit. For nigh almost 9 years I have been commenting in Physorg under a different name. This name I use now is more of a political statement. I left the "u" out just to be nice. LOL

I forgot to look up the Molybdenum on the list in the Wiki article. I will do that now.
BAKOON
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2013
You are wrong about gold being a necessary element for life. Stop being a jackass.

We all ready knew you were a sockpuppet troll. It's a little late to admit to it.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (16) Aug 29, 2013
42 Molybdenum 0.000013 0.000005 4.5e-8 Yes (e.g. the molybdenum oxotransferases, Xanthine oxidase and Sulfite oxidase) 6

The atomic # for Molybdenum is 42; the % of mass is 0.000013; the mass in kg is 0.000005; the atomic % is 4.5e-8; and yes, it does have a positive health role in mammals.
Silver is toxic. Who knew? I'll have to tell my ex-wife since she has all the silver. :)
rug
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2013
Socks found it, the answer to life the universe and everything! lol
Sinister1811
1.2 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2013
I thought they already solved this problem. Life on Earth developed chemically and then biologically. Why does Mars have to have anything to do with it? Is there life on Mars today? No. Was there life there in the past? No.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 29, 2013
BAKOON/BABOON - just another sockpuppet of Theghostofotto1923. I see that you are determined to engage me in conversation.

Perhaps you didn't notice that I said, "Gold can be found in the human body, but in trace amounts. While it's not necessary to maintain health, it is just one of the many elements that make up the human body."
rug
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2013
Is there life on Mars today? No. Was there life there in the past? No.

We don't know if that is the case or not yet. There may have been life at one time. There might still be life. We just haven't found it yet.
BAKOON
2.8 / 5 (16) Aug 29, 2013
You also said this because you're an idiot:
Gold is said to be a necessary element for life, but in very tiny quantities.
Stop backpedaling and admit you were wrong.

Oh come on. The below post is beyond hypocritical. Here is his rant on his received knowledge of hell:

The evil person's Soul doesn't experience the FIRES of hell immediately. No, it has to wait a very long time until the Sun goes supernova and envelopes and draws the Earth into it.
When this happens, all evil Souls, including demons, will burn for eternity.
I say it again what it I believe to be true in spite of what preachers say.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

What a shitface.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 29, 2013
I thought they already solved this problem. Life on Earth developed chemically and then biologically. Why does Mars have to have anything to do with it? Is there life on Mars today? No. Was there life there in the past? No.
-Sinister1811

I am impressed that you say the latter part of your post with such certainty. I could never be quite as certain about another planet. You are truly a work of...art.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (17) Aug 29, 2013
Is there life on Mars today? No. Was there life there in the past? No.

We don't know if that is the case or not yet. There may have been life at one time. There might still be life. We just haven't found it yet.
-rug

You have great insight in these matters. Somehow I'm not surprised. If you're not a scientist yet, you should be one. Why? Because you haven't jumped to conclusions. That's important in science...to take it step by step to its end.
BAKOON
2.6 / 5 (15) Aug 29, 2013
So what was the step by step process that led you to this awesome knowledge?

The evil person's Soul doesn't experience the FIRES of hell immediately. No, it has to wait a very long time until the Sun goes supernova and envelopes and draws the Earth into it.
When this happens, all evil Souls, including demons, will burn for eternity.
I say it again what it I believe to be true in spite of what preachers say.


Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

What a christofascist shitface you are.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 29, 2013
@rug

BAKOON/BABOON/Theghostofotto1923 has just reintroduced RELIGION into this thread. While I do have certain religious beliefs, I thought that we were talking about Molybdenum and Mars now in THIS thread
rug
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2013
-rug

You have great insight in these matters. Somehow I'm not surprised. If you're not a scientist yet, you should be one. Why? Because you haven't jumped to conclusions. That's important in science...to take it step by step to its end.


Never been one, but I do need a scientific mind as an engineer.
BAKOON
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2013
Oh funny, I thought we were talking about how you are dumb enough to think an inert element is necessary for life.
Gold is said to be a necessary element for life, but in very tiny quantities.
-shitface_socks
rug
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2013
@rug

BAKOON/BABOON/Theghostofotto1923 has just reintroduced RELIGION into this thread. While I do have certain religious beliefs, I thought that we were talking about Molybdenum and Mars now in THIS thread


Thee points,
1) The topic at the time was Life on Mars
2) He just quoted what you had put posted in on another article.
3) He's a dumbass
Sinister1811
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2013
I thought they already solved this problem. Life on Earth developed chemically and then biologically. Why does Mars have to have anything to do with it? Is there life on Mars today? No. Was there life there in the past? No.
-Sinister1811

I am impressed that you say the latter part of your post with such certainty. I could never be quite as certain about another planet. You are truly a work of...art.


Well, maybe they'll wake me up when they find life on Mars. lol
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 30, 2013
@rug

This is true. What was said in the other thread, should stay in the other thread. But Theghostofotto1923 through his new sockpuppet, BAKOON (who is a replacement for the now possibly defunct FrankHerbert sockpuppet) has been doing this sort of thing for years now. TGofO saves up years and years of old threads in which someone said something, so that TGofO can insert the link into a thread that has nothing to do with the topic of the old thread.
A real pissoffer, that one. ROFLOL
BAKOON
2.7 / 5 (14) Aug 30, 2013
Your dipshit hell rant was from two weeks ago. And why should it stay there? It very clearly demonstrates how much of an idiot and hypocrite you are, hence no one should waste time arguing with you and you should be banned.

So do you still think gold is essential for life, or are you going to claim you said that years ago?
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 30, 2013
@Sinister
@rug

I have no idea if there is life on Mars now or at any other time in the past, Only time and a lot of patience will tell. But I have seen UFOs in the sky flying over the Sierra Madre Mtns. in California. I've seen them twice, once alone and the second time with 4 friends who also saw it.
I am familiar with all the makes and models of planes, helicopters, missiles...American, Russian British built, etc....anything that flies in our airspace. But these two were definitely not anything built on Earth. They were saucer-shaped...and flying low enough to be identified as no aircraft known to this world. I knew that it had to be extraterrestrial because of its maneuverability that no known aircraft can duplicate after it suddenly shot upwards and then made a 45 degree turn at the same speed.

You can laugh all you want, but there is a presence in our airspace that cannot be identified as one of ours.
BAKOON
2.3 / 5 (15) Aug 30, 2013
If you die on Mars, is it possible to go to hell?

Their self-condemnation will prove their undoing when they die and each one's Soul is forced to remain in the body and can FEEL the agonies of being part of a rotting corpse.

The Soul of an evil person will feel all the pains of a hellish existence as it is placed in the ground in darkness that is blacker than night. It has time for reflection of its evil ways and evil thoughts, words and deeds that it had while it lived.

The evil person's Soul doesn't experience the FIRES of hell immediately. No, it has to wait a very long time until the Sun goes supernova and envelopes and draws the Earth into it.
When this happens, all evil Souls, including demons, will burn for eternity.
I say it again what it I believe to be true in spite of what preachers say.
-Obama_socks, King Idiot

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
obama_socks
1 / 5 (19) Aug 30, 2013
I have talked to both military and airline pilots about these UFOs. They have all seen them but don't want to be on record as having witnessed such spacecraft because their jobs are on the line if it's known that they talked. They said that they have also seen meteors fly above their aircraft, but the UFOs don't leave a trail of smoke or fire.

I have no idea of where these UFO originate or what their purpose is, but they are here and we will have to get used to it.
BAKOON
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 30, 2013
Dumbaaaaaaassssssssssss
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 30, 2013
Dumbaaaaaaassssssssssss
-BABOON

Yes, we all know you are.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (18) Aug 30, 2013
And BTW...In my previous post, I had typed, ""Gold is said to be a necessary element for life, but in very tiny quantities.""

Anyone with a functioning brain would have noticed that I said, "Gold IS SAID TO BE..."
Because I am not a chemist, I was quoting another source, even though that source was mistaken.
I never said that Gold IS a necessary element. I only said that it is SAID TO BE.

So once again, Blotto displays his/its lack of comprehension skills and follows me around to check my accuracy in every thread. I am not the only one that Theghostofotto1923 or his/its sockpuppets goes after. There are a few others. Blotto expects everyone to kiss his ass/arse and worship his ability to get old information from Wiki and YouTube. Blotto suffers from DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER, and is quite possibly demonically possessed.

See Blotto's sockpuppet names in my Profile. The great majority belong to Blotto and there is much evidence for it.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2013
I have a huge respect for Benner after the "arsenic life" debacle, as he pointed out how unfeasible and unevidenced the hypothesis was. But this is an old idea of his: "In point of fact, I happen to believe that molybdenum is essential for life, and molybdenum is much more scarce than either silicon or carbon. Boron might also be essential to life, and that is still less abundant." (2006, http://www.spaced...999.html ) And it haven't panned out well what I know.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2013
[ctd]

- Boron is supposed to stabilize the ribose in RNA under salty (ocean) conditions. But before it was found in martian meteorites it was only known from Earth: "Boron is commonly found in clay sediments found on Earth." [ http://www.nature...-rna.htm ] And today we have evidence that ribose and the nucleotide bases is stabilized, and stabilizes, the lipids that was produced in the environment of early protocells. [Don't have the ref handy.]

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2013
[ctd]

- Molybden I know less about, but googling the first poster describes how molybden was plentiful and presumably of the same oxidation state in the early Archean as today: "We suggest the geochemical cycle of Mo during the Archean-Paleoproterozoic time was essentially the same as today: Mo-bearing minerals were quantitatively oxidized during weathering, dissolved Mo was transported to the oceans, and it was fixed by C_org and sulfide S in locally anoxic marine environments." [ "MOLYBDENUM GEOCHEMICAL CYCLE IN THE ARCHEAN", Yamaguchi, 2002 Denver Annual Meeting ; https://gsa.confe...4043.htm ] The concentration of organics under the Hadean was presumably diluted outside of alkaline hydrothermal vents. They may have gummed up some surfaces, but not all.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2013
[ctd]
- And as barakn notes, we do know of both weathered crust and oceans under the Hadean.

In sum, the 3 proposed tests for conditions under the hypothesis all falls. Meaning the likelihood for local abiogenesis seems to have been good enough on Earth. Transpermia remains the less likely pathway, an easy enough estimate from known experiments. (But too long to cover here.)
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2013
Creationists shouldn't troll science sites. It is hilarious and it makes converts from religion, see Dawkins's Convert's Corner. Even more hilarious, the latest psychology diagnosis manual DSM-5 has now dropped the unsubstantiated exception from earlier versions for religion as delusion!

Ordinarily I wouldn't respond more, but this is astrobiology. Today it is a known and doubly observed fact that life, biological evolution, originates from plenty observed chemical evolution! We have the homology between the commonest ocean elements and the cellular CHNOPS set, and the homology of pH modulated alkaline hydrothermal vent chemistry and early chemoautotrophs (see Lane & Martin), that tests such a phylogeny.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 30, 2013
[ctd]
On the other hand, physics do observe how objects derives out of nothing, such as virtual pair production out of vacuum fields. And even if not, we do know today that the universe is a result of a spontaneous process (flat geometry = zero energy = no action needed) and therefore not a result of or containing magic action.

So psychology classes religion and its magic as delusion, and consistently physics classes religious magic as non-existent. Atheists has only to accept the sciences. =D Creationists has to deny them to protect their delusions as we can see, unfortunately for society.
triplehelix
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2013
I am having trouble understanding why life would struggle to come forth on earth due to "being covered in water". I was always under the impression that water gives great conditions for life...???

freethinking
1 / 5 (18) Aug 30, 2013
GMR, I would love to have a good conversation with you....

If creationism met the threshhold set for science then it could be taught as a science.

-You are assuming and dogmatic that it doesn't. So lets examine the evidence. If a student at High School wants to talk about it, a great science teacher would use the students interest to not only teach evolution but critical thinking. Give the student an assignment where evolution and creationism are alike, different, and proofs. Now the student has to think.

Without that criteria, you open the door to electric and plasma universe concepts being given equal weight to theories that actually have predictive value.

-Again, as a science teacher I would allow the discussion,

If you look at my posts I have issues that one must accept dogma (christian, Progressive, Conservative, etc.) without question. Honest Questions should be encouraged.

rug
2.6 / 5 (17) Aug 30, 2013
ugh so many dumbasses
kochevnik
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 30, 2013
[So psychology classes religion and its magic as delusion, and consistently physics classes religious magic as non-existent. Atheists has only to accept the sciences. =D Creationists has to deny them to protect their delusions as we can see, unfortunately for society.
Even a vacuum has structure, and that alone spews a shower of particles. That is because there is no such thing as nothing. Only religionists continually talk about nothing as some argument for their gawd. Even in Buddhism nirvana is not nothing but actually everything.

Humans are wired to see massive symmetry as nothing. For instance a white wall is considered blank although it contains all visible colors, i.e. everything

Structure may be the basis of everything, More poignantly, it is simply an idea and does not require material form although it may
Gmr
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 30, 2013
freethinking:
The threshhold for science is a rather stringent one. Nobody gets a pass on the criteria. Discussing Creationism in a social science context is fine, given that currently it is more a matter of a reinterpretation of evidence from a worldview attempting to reconcile it with a nonscientific document.

But currently Creationism is not at that threshhold where it could give reliable prediction, especially since it is not repeatable or testable. Abiogenesis is a separate subject from evolution, and I'd have to add evolution provides an explanation and prediction to the physiological cladistics already present, and narrowed the search for the mechanism of inheritance to germ line cells and subsequently DNA.

If it had testable predictions or repeatable facets, it could work towards being a science. I'm not refusing to discuss it or saying "never," but science has certain definitions that have to be met to be considered science.
freethinking
1 / 5 (17) Aug 30, 2013
GMR, based on your own definition Evolution is not at that threshhold where it could give reliable prediction, especially since it is not repeatable or testable.

Lets repeat getting one species to turn into another species. Lets test if one species can turn into another distinct species?

Also Creationism predicted that there must be a use for vestigial organs like the appendix, it allows for adaptation, yet disallows one species to turn into another species.

The appendix has now been found to have a purpose.
Adaptation within species does occur..
No species has been observed changing into another species, and according the geneticists if a creature gains an extra chromosome unless it finds a partner with the same extra chromosome, even if the creature is superior, it is in effect sterile. (Horse + Donkey = sterile mule)
rug
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 30, 2013
GMR, based on your own definition Evolution is not at that threshhold where it could give reliable prediction, especially since it is not repeatable or testable.


WRONG! DUMBASS Evolution predicted we would be able to find fossils showing a progression of changes that eventually becomes a new species. Oh look at that...WE DID!

No species has been observed changing into another species, and according the geneticists if a creature gains an extra chromosome unless it finds a partner with the same extra chromosome, even if the creature is superior, it is in effect sterile. (Horse + Donkey = sterile mule)

That is because it happens over geological timescales. Not overnight. Spend more time reading about evolution in real science books and not your religious dogma you would know this already.

How many times do I have to say it. Take your religious views and get out of here. There is no point in discussing a topic when you are using straw man arguments right from the get go.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2013
No species has been observed changing into another species

Here's a primer with some observed speciation events listed.
http://en.wikiped...eciation
freethinking
1 / 5 (16) Aug 30, 2013
Creationists and evolutionists, all have the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions; these are things that are assumed to be true without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events

http://www.answer...creation
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2013
Creationists and evolutionists, all have the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

Problem is that creationists tend to ignore a lot of observed facts and add a lot of unobserved 'facts' to jump to their conclusions (which aren't even merited by THEIR set of facts. But that's besides the point)

And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions

And here's where science differs fundamentally: It TESTS its presuppositions.

Creationism doesn't. So creationism suffers from the old problem: garbage in - garbage out.
freethinking
1 / 5 (18) Aug 30, 2013
Problem is that Evolutionists tend to ignore a lot of observed facts and add a lot of unobserved 'facts' to jump to their conclusions (which aren't even merited by THEIR set of facts. But that's besides the point)

And here's where science differs fundamentally: It TESTS its presuppositions.

Evolution doesn't, to evolutionist ONLY evolution can explain everything. So Evolutionist suffers from the old problem: garbage in - garbage out.

Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2013
And here's where science differs fundamentally: It TESTS its presuppositions.


That makes no sense. Of course science tests it's presuppoistions, that's what experimental science is. Observe, hypothesize, test, refine, test, refine,,,,,

Religion on the other hand, does not do that. They reach a wall and stop testing as soon as the dogma fails, fill in the gaps with mysticism, and don't slow down to wonder how it works.

When people try to discuss religion from a science perspective it's hilarious. And when people try to discuss science from a religious perspective it's ridiculous. The methods and goals are different. The language is different. The tools and processes are different.

But neither understands why the other side isn't playing the game right or is using the correct criteria.

It's like one guy shows up with chess pieces, the other shows up with a dart board, and each blames the other because the game isn't making any sense.
rug
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 30, 2013
Creationists and evolutionists, all have the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

Creationists -
Ignore facts that don't fit your theories.
Assumes everything is made by some entity but has not evidence so show for it.
Assumes again with no proof a book that contradicts itself is fact.
Tries to prove it's correct only by saying evolution is incorrect. Again with no evidence.

Evolutionists -
Takes the evidence that is available.
Basis a theory off of the evidence.
Theory makes predictions.
Predictions are verified by new evidence.
Finds new evidence that again supports the theory.
Finds new evidence that again supports the theory.
Finds new evidence that again supports the theory.
Finds new evidence that again supports the theory.
Theory accepted.

I think I see the problem here. Creationists have no evidence.
rug
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 30, 2013
to evolutionist ONLY evolution can explain everything.

If there was a theory that did a better job explaining what we see. That would be the new accepted theory. The key thing you are lacking is evidence. Without evidence it's just make believe.
freethinking
1 / 5 (18) Aug 30, 2013
Q-star Lets assume the earth actually is only 10000 years old.

An evolutionist cannot believe that the world is only 10000 years old WILL NOT because of their mindset believe any evidence for a young earth, even if it fact it is true.

JohnGee
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 30, 2013
Yes, and young Earth creationists cannot believe the earth is over 10,000 no matter how much evidence is shown.

The difference is there is compelling evidence for an old Earth. There isn't any for a young Earth. You only have faith to support that.
rug
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 30, 2013
An evolutionist cannot believe that the world is only 10000 years old WILL NOT because of their mindset believe any evidence for a young earth, even if it fact it is true.

There is absolutely no evidence to back that claim. However, this is evidence to show the earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years because of radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Take a look, you might learn something.
http://en.wikiped...he_Earth
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 30, 2013
This part is a little inaccurate... He should have said
Ahaahaaa its funny when idiots try to correct scientists.
a rock (well supplied with the right ingredients for life) from a much less geologically agitated Mars could have been thrown into a trajectory towards Earth by the impact of a huge rock that smashed into Mars...possibly a body from the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Half of Mars is loaded with such craters.
After landing on Earth, God the Creator would naturally use such materials
-So the idiot god of the idiot obamasocks is an opportunist? He creates everything but has to wait for a chance collision to supply the ingredients he needs to make life on earth (or perhaps... he MADE it happen!?!!)

Huh. Was that like around 2:30 on the afternoon of the 3rd day or something? Creation must have been a little more complicated than god is letting on in his book I think.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2013
Q-star Lets assume the earth actually is only 10000 years old.


I let ya assume it. I'll assume it for the sake of argument after ya give me a reason to assume it. What reason would ya offer to help me assume it?

An evolutionist cannot believe that the world is only 10000 years old WILL NOT because of their mindset believe any evidence for a young earth, even if it fact it is true.


Well I'm not an evolutionist, I am an physicist, but I would advise the evolutionist that he should stick with that disbelief stubborn disbelief,,, because there is NOTHING in ANY branch of physical science that would even hint that the earth is only 10000.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2013
God creates the Sun, Moon and stars to provide light for all the planets. after which the Light emanating from God is no longer required...Of course, it is true that the Sun provides the necessities for continuous growth. But in the Beginning, it was the Light from God that was the necessary ingredient for the propagation of the first life forms on Earth when there were still no Sun, Moon and stars...

If you had bothered to read my posts, the entirety of which shows the closeness of Science AND Creation...

The Laws in the U.S. are assumed to be within the framework of information for most citizens if not all.

Why is it that scientists cannot COMMIT themselves to a stated proposition, rather than using ambiguous terms?
It is rare that we gain direct insight into the inner workings of the brain of a 250k/yr NASA astronautical engineer (contract). Posting from berlin again no doubt. Or is it karachi at the moment dear pussytard?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2013
will the giant glass martians be spared from Satan's flames?
Well how do you think their heads got vitrified?
Now if you would like to have a real science discussion where religion does not play into it fine.
Stop it.
I would be happy to do that.
No you wouldnt. Please visit my profile page for a compilation of what this imbecile considers science.
http://phys.org/p...tto1923/
I know that the supply of gold in the Earth is finite
-as opposed to many other materials like egg whites which are infinite.
Gold can be found in the human body
-along with PCBs and plutonium. In trace amounts.
You are truly a work of...art...You have great insight in these matters. Somehow I'm not surprised. If you're not a scientist yet, you should be one.
-More ungodly sucking noises.
Theghostofotto1923 through his new sockpuppet, BAKOON
Sorry thats not me.
I have talked to both military and airline pilots
Huh. So did pirouette. Coincidence or -?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 30, 2013
Their self-condemnation will prove their undoing when they die and each one's Soul is forced to remain in the body and can FEEL the agonies of being part of a rotting corpse.

The Soul of an evil person will feel all the pains of a hellish existence as it is placed in the ground in darkness that is blacker than night. It has time for reflection of its evil ways and evil thoughts, words and deeds that it had while it lived

Yes, we all know you are.

I have no idea of where these UFO originate or what their purpose is, but they are here and we will have to get used to it.
-More revealing insight from the very excellent $250k/yr NASA asstronautical engineer (contract), posting from a very expensive hotel suite in a very pretentious foreign city.
I was quoting another source, even though that source was mistaken
So post the source. Hint - your ass is not a proper source.
freethinking
1 / 5 (16) Aug 30, 2013
So according to Evolutionists, no matter what the proof is that the earth is young, they WILL not consider it, will not be swayed by it, because they know by DOGMA that the Earth Must be old. In other words, Evolutionists are closed minded and dogmatic, yet they have the gall to accuse Creationist of being closed minded and dogmatic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2013
So according to Evolutionists, no matter what the proof is that the earth is young, they WILL not consider it, will not be swayed by it, because they know by DOGMA that the Earth Must be old. In other words, Evolutionists are closed minded and dogmatic, yet they have the gall to accuse Creationist of being closed minded and dogmatic.
The only evidence you godders have for creationism is found inside a book full of lies and mistakes and plagiarisms and graffiti. Why dont you come back when you have something a little more credible?
rug
2 / 5 (13) Aug 30, 2013
So according to Evolutionists, no matter what the proof is that the earth is young, they WILL not consider it, will not be swayed by it, because they know by DOGMA that the Earth Must be old. In other words, Evolutionists are closed minded and dogmatic, yet they have the gall to accuse Creationist of being closed minded and dogmatic.

Nope, that is not the case. If there was some scientific evidence (aka not a book) then it would be considered. Until then, it's not even an option BECAUSE there is no evidence.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2013
So according to Evolutionists, no matter what the proof is that the earth is young, they WILL not consider it, will not be swayed by it, because they know by DOGMA that the Earth Must be old. In other words, Evolutionists are closed minded and dogmatic, yet they have the gall to accuse Creationist of being closed minded and dogmatic.


I will consider it if ya offer something to consider. I'm not closed minded. I'm willing to consider any evidence that the world is not old. I would like ya to expose my mind to what it is that leads ya to the idea that it is 10000 years old.

So how do ya arrive at that 10000 year figure? Inform me. Telling me to assume it, as ya did before, is not a reason for me to think ya could be correct. Tell us why ya think it.

P.S. Your theory must be self-consistent and translational. Do ya know what I mean by that?
freethinking
1 / 5 (18) Aug 30, 2013
So you would believe evidence that the earth is actually 10,000 years old?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (17) Aug 30, 2013
Creationists shouldn't troll science sites. It is hilarious and it makes converts from religion, see Dawkins's Convert's Corner. Even more hilarious, the latest psychology diagnosis manual DSM-5 has now dropped the unsubstantiated exception from earlier versions for religion as delusion!

Ordinarily I wouldn't respond more, but this is astrobiology. Today it is a known and doubly observed fact that life, biological evolution, originates from plenty observed chemical evolution! We have the homology between the commonest ocean elements and the cellular CHNOPS set, and the homology of pH modulated alkaline hydrothermal vent chemistry and early chemoautotrophs (see Lane & Martin), that tests such a phylogeny.

[tbctd]
-Torbjorn

Although I cannot speak for all Christians, I am in accord with scientific discovery, evaluation of, and conclusive evidence. But science is ever-changing and what is true now can be false tomorrow.
contd
obama_socks
1 / 5 (17) Aug 30, 2013
contd
As I have mentioned in other posts, I recognize that evolution is a natural process that accommodates change, growth and improvement. I assume that you see evolution and life as a result of chemical action and nothing more. But I see that the very first chemical action and reaction that resulted in the first one-celled animals as not just chemistry, but as a "base" or "solid foundation" for the final ingredient that would endow movement for the coming together of those chemicals into a well-composed and well-engineered mixture prior to the addition of the final ingredient.

That final ingredient is, of course, the Energy from God the Creator. Your basic premise is correct. The 6 most important elements are required for the base, with other elements in lesser degrees of quantity as also important to the mixture. But without the last ingredient, the base remains as only a base and nothing more. contd
Requiem
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 30, 2013
So you would believe evidence that the earth is actually 10,000 years old?


Yep. Absolutely any scientist would. The problem is that you don't understand the definition of "evidence" in the arena of science. And it would take more than evidence, it would take experimental or observational proof as well.

If you have further questions about the scientific method, you should refer to wikipedia or any other source. It actually has well-defined rules, and they are the same for everybody.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (17) Aug 30, 2013
@ Torbjorn

Please keep in mind that I refer to the "creation" of life, and not its subsequent evolution.
Requiem
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 30, 2013
That final ingredient is, of course, the Energy from God the Creator. Your basic premise is correct. The 6 most important elements are required for the base, with other elements in lesser degrees of quantity as also important to the mixture. But without the last ingredient, the base remains as only a base and nothing more. contd


WRONG, a wizard did it. Furthermore, I'm right and you're wrong.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2013
So you would believe evidence that the earth is actually 10,000 years old?


How can I answer that until I see the evidence? I'm sure ya are very good at what ya do, and consider yourself a great sophist. But I like to stay focused & orderly,,,, we can't do that if ya are going answer questions with questions. But if it is to be a game of sophistry and convoluted trails of words for the purpose of seeing who can out smart the other,, I'd rather not.

Let's focus. I'll recap briefly.

Ya said I should be open and fair an assume the world is 10000 years old.

I said I don't assume that but am willing try if ya give something to found the assumption upon.

Ya said I would accept no evidence and just reiterate the dogma.

A said my mind is open, tell how might we pick the number 10000 years?

Ya wrote back "So you would believe evidence that the earth is actually 10,000 years old?"

That is not a question I can answer, until I hear the premise for assuming it?
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 30, 2013
contd

@Torbjorn
You see only a need for the necessary chemicals to create life in the beginning of life on Earth. Just a pile of CHNOPS. But the chemistry requires a catalyst to begin the methodical process and to make the process work. The Energy from God may have come in the form of electromagnetism - a bolt of lightning…or a "thought". Or a combination of both.
One could gather all the basic elements for life, add some others in the proper quantity, mix it all together, and…voila!! Nothing happens. You can put all of it in a microwave or place an electrode in the pile and turn it on…but still, nothing happens. You haven't created life. If you have the knowledge of how to create life, please post it here so that others can try it. I think the basic ingredients cost somewhere around $40U.S.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 30, 2013
@Totbjorn
Certainly, the first life forms on Earth were created from chemicals in the right proportions. RNA and the basic DNA and whatever else went into such a life form initially came from God. Even the best and brightest scientist that ever lived cannot create life as it was created by God. Motility, movement, thought -all came from God. Creation is not just about religion and dogma…that all came much later as man evolved.
Everything that came after, such as wars, murder, theft, and all the rest of the seven deadly sins, came from man.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 30, 2013
contd
The Bible is a mishmash of Jewish lore and adventure. Those books explain Jewish history. But the Bible wasn't supposed to be written for the express purpose of glorifying the Jews and their history as certain people believe it to be.
It is still a Book of Instructions on how to conduct one's life. That is all. It has been misinterpreted to benefit the Jews, but it needs to be read over and over in order to glean the actual meaning, and not the misinformation.
In spite of what you were taught, God was the first scientist. Science and Creationism are not in conflict with each other...they actually complement each other. It is only man who thinks it so.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 30, 2013
@free

I would very much appreciate if you didn't keep arguing that the Earth is only 10,000 years old. I'm sure you are much too intelligent to really believe that.
God is ageless and had billions of years before He created man (and woman). Do you seriously think (like some other Christian religionists) that God would waste several billions of years on Earth doing nothing, and then suddenly get the urge to create only in the last 10,000 years? Seriously?
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 30, 2013
So according to Evolutionists, no matter what the proof is that the earth is young, they WILL not consider it, will not be swayed by it, because they know by DOGMA that the Earth Must be old. In other words, Evolutionists are closed minded and dogmatic, yet they have the gall to accuse Creationist of being closed minded and dogmatic.

Nope, that is not the case. If there was some scientific evidence (aka not a book) then it would be considered. Until then, it's not even an option BECAUSE there is no evidence.
-rug

If you or anyone else in the world can provide proof that a scientist can create life that can move, or even unmovable life if it breathes, and that I can see his/her process from the beginning and record it, where the experiment can be duplicated elsewhere, and where there is unadulterated and incontrovertible evidence that the scientist actually created LIFE from just a pile of chemicals, then I will believe.
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 30, 2013
I'm just asking for one small life form...from scratch...and without any trickery.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2013
I'm just asking for one small life form...from scratch...and without any trickery.


Well good luck with that. This isn't the best to be asking for it though. I won't think that the movers and shakers of science budget prioritizing spend a lot of time here on physorg, not their venue ya know, have ya tried writing to researchers actually working in the field? If ya can't get them interested ya might be "asking" for awhile. Most people here can't help ya.

Hey but while we're wanting and wishing and all, let's spend more money to quicken up the pace of the JWST, there is project that should been up and already working.
Gmr
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 30, 2013
GMR, based on your own definition Evolution is not at that threshhold where it could give reliable prediction, especially since it is not repeatable or testable.

It is repeatable and testable. Tests include the idea of common descent - tested and found to jibe with DNA evidence, long after Darwin. DNA is part of the prediction of germ-line cells - the data necessary to code an entire creature is within one cell. Prediction after prediction that are now taken for granted or as common knowledge were derived from the theory of evolution.

The question of being able to repeat it is really a non-issue. We can. We can watch it in action. We can see all of the mechanisms. We can watch its progress by degrees.

Creationism postulates a special creation event. That is by its nature not repeatable. Testing it as well appears, currently, impossible. How do you test that something is specially created? If it is totally unrelated to other "types." This is not found to be true.
Gmr
3 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2013
(cotd.)
Your own example of the mule should be impossible in the postulate of variant but ultimately inviolate kinds. It should be either able to breed or not, not halfway. If a donkey is a "kind" of horse, why is it unable to produce fertile offspring? Are they two different kinds? The same "kind" just too different? Where does the line exist in "kinds" if cross-breeding isn't disallowed? Is cross-breeding of kinds acceptable? Over which groups?

Evolution says differences accrue. More separation: more differences, until cross-breeding is no longer extant and/or possible. In this postulate is the idea that mixing still might occur, but produce less and less fit offspring as the species separate. It also would say vastly different species, such as crab and horse, could never produce viable offspring.

I'm not sure there is such a postulate in creationism if there isn't relatedness, kinds are inviolate, but some cross breeding is acceptable. Cross a lobster and a rabbit.
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (15) Aug 30, 2013
@rug
I was curious about something: I know you said you learned a lot by watching science shows... wasn't there an announcement recently about the possibilities of amino acids being generated in comets?
just curious...
@Q-star are there any other processes that could have created the molybdenum mentioned above?
also... they said in the article that they found "an oxidized mineral form of the element molybdenum" but spoke of the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere, but what about water. Oxygen is present in water, but how does molybdenum react in water. as a physicist I thought you might know, Q-star. cant molybdenum oxidize in water?
Captain Stumpy
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 30, 2013
@Q-star
the reason I ask is that I know that you don't need gaseous oxygen for oxidation, but is there way to tell if oxidation has happened from gaseous oxygen verses water, or perhaps other combinations of oxygen?
is that why they made the statement ""This form of molybdenum couldn't have been available on Earth at the time life first began, because three billion years ago the surface of the Earth had very little oxygen, but Mars did."
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 30, 2013
@Q-star
the reason I ask is that I know that you don't need gaseous oxygen for oxidation, but is there way to tell if oxidation has happened from gaseous oxygen verses water, or perhaps other combinations of oxygen?
is that why they made the statement ""This form of molybdenum couldn't have been available on Earth at the time life first began, because three billion years ago the surface of the Earth had very little oxygen, but Mars did."


Astrobiology, or any biology for that matter is an area I would not be able to comment intelligently on. I'm not sure who to point ya to. Ya might try wiki, interested people try to keep it current and relevant. The only caveat is that wiki, though fairly reliable over-all & generally, there are the occasional misplaced focus on certain elements in their presentation. But that is mostly found in the minutia and "still being worked on" science.

Sorry.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 30, 2013
I'm just asking for one small life form...from scratch...and without any trickery.


Well good luck with that. This isn't the best to be asking for it though. I won't think that the movers and shakers of science budget prioritizing spend a lot of time here on physorg, not their venue ya know, have ya tried writing to researchers actually working in the field? If ya can't get them interested ya might be "asking" for awhile. Most people here can't help ya..
-Q-Star

Well, I had imagined that some on this website might be budding scientists who might take an interest in such a challenge and put their heart and wallet into it. Silly me.
But seriously, the hypothesis that the most primitive beginning of the first cell actually came from a pile of CHNOPS, a little H2O and some other good stuff, and somehow, with nobody around, the pile starts seething and squirming and who knows what else it did ALL BY ITS LONESOME. That sounds worse than descending from monkeys. m(%)m
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (15) Aug 31, 2013

Astrobiology, ... and "still being worked on" science.
Sorry.

Q-star
thanks for the input. I just know that isotopes can be seen and we can even "tag" elements to track their use biologically and find their end products, but I wondered how the article differentiated between Mo oxidized in a gaseous oxygen environment and the possible oxidation of Mo in earths watery past.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 31, 2013
Gmr said: ""Creationism postulates a special creation event. That is by its nature not repeatable. Testing it as well appears, currently, impossible. How do you test that something is specially created? If it is totally unrelated to other "types." This is not found to be true.""

But Gmr...science alone postulates that there was no special creation event. If that be the case, then the whole process from the beginning with a pile of CHNOPS and other doodads that was from a Martian rock could be duplicated and can be tested in a lab. According to atheists, we are all descended from that mixture that suddenly came alive one day without any outside assistance or subsequent nurturing to see that it didn't all get washed away in the rain. The diff between atheistic science and creationist science is that outside help from a certain Entity provided the Force that set the mixture coming together in a methodical and logical manner. The first cell had to be induced to "line up all its ducks"
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 31, 2013
contd
And if the very first cell that was self-made and had all its ducks in a row, so to speak, without outside help, then there is nothing to stop a scientist from proposing a sequence of events that resulted in the first self-made cell...and then following such a sequence in a lab to prove that it ca be done without God's helping it along.
I will look forward to the day when there is enough incontrovertible evidence that will convince me that God doesn't exist. But until that day, I will remain a Christian and a believer. The truth is out there.
rug
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 31, 2013
So according to Evolutionists, no matter what the proof is that the earth is young, they WILL not consider it, will not be swayed by it, because they know by DOGMA that the Earth Must be old. In other words, Evolutionists are closed minded and dogmatic, yet they have the gall to accuse Creationist of being closed minded and dogmatic.

Nope, that is not the case. If there was some scientific evidence (aka not a book) then it would be considered. Until then, it's not even an option BECAUSE there is no evidence.
-rug

If you or anyone else in the world can provide proof that a scientist can create life that can move, or even unmovable life if it breathes, and that I can see his/her process from the beginning and record it, where the experiment can be duplicated elsewhere, and where there is unadulterated and incontrovertible evidence that the scientist actually created LIFE from just a pile of chemicals, then I will believe.


Working on it!
Captain Stumpy
1.9 / 5 (17) Aug 31, 2013
so... according to the article "Molybdenum in chemical evolution: stepwise oxygenation of the Proterozoic ocean ― molybdate as a marker"
found here: http://www.imoa.i...ates.php

it appears to me that Mo oxidizes differently in aqueous and gaseous conditions, as well as reacting to certain sulfidic conditions in the sediment and water. so the Mo is basically different depending on circumstances. i can understand that...
but how do the authors know that oxidized Mo from Mars seeded Earth? why could it not have been a tertiary contributor that seeded both? anyone with chemistry that can help expain it to me? thanks
Gmr
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2013
contd
And if the very first cell that was self-made and had all its ducks in a row, so to speak, without outside help, then there is nothing to stop a scientist from proposing a sequence of events that resulted in the first self-made cell...and then following such a sequence in a lab to prove that it ca be done without God's helping it along.
I will look forward to the day when there is enough incontrovertible evidence that will convince me that God doesn't exist. But until that day, I will remain a Christian and a believer. The truth is out there.

Evolution is not there to invalidate God. If a person happens to feel that biblical inerrancy requires that something not be true, facts and their particular interpretation will collide.

As stated, Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis. It doesn't have to. It's postulate is one of common descent from biological ancestors. As such, stating it doesn't contain what it doesn't contain is not a flaw, it is an observation.
JohnGee
2.8 / 5 (16) Aug 31, 2013
Gmr, I think you need to understand that conversing with obama_socks will do nothing more than inundate you in a mound of half-baked ideas. This guy seems pretty dumb on all accounts.

He masks profound intellectual laziness as a keen desire to learn and should not be awarded for it.
Gmr
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2013
Gmr, I think you need to understand that conversing with obama_socks will do nothing more than inundate you in a mound of half-baked ideas. This guy seems pretty dumb on all accounts.

He masks profound intellectual laziness as a keen desire to learn and should not be awarded for it.


It is interesting to disentangle the different modes of, well, argument that present here. There are those who assault scientists as having a complex that requires them to invalidate others' beliefs, those who decry that they are under assault by those same scientists, those who claim ideas are oppressive if they invalidate other ideas, those who turn intellectual rigor in definition and criteria into dogmatic oppression.

And all I keep seeing is scientists indulging scientific curiosity.

Different flavors, but for the moment I guess I'm here more to try and address some of what comes up so I can understand why.

Thanks for the warning, though.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 31, 2013
Well, I had imagined that some on this website might be budding scientists who might take an interest in such a challenge and put their heart and wallet into it. Silly me.


Not silly just naive. Science is expensive, there is a lot of competition for research grants and funding. The thing ya are soliciting would be VERY expensive science and it is unlikely that the funding for the project can be found on an informal forum such as this one.

The days of cutting edge science being done in kitchen labs and garage workshops is long past. The thing ya are suggesting is not "hobby" science.

But seriously, the hypothesis that the most primitive beginning of the first cell actually came from a pile of CHNOPS, a little H2O and some other good stuff, and somehow, with nobody around, the pile starts seething and squirming and who knows what else it did ALL BY ITS LONESOME.


Not my field, so I'm a poor go-to person for rating that hypothesis.
rug
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 31, 2013
@rug
I was curious about something: I know you said you learned a lot by watching science shows... wasn't there an announcement recently about the possibilities of amino acids being generated in comets?

I do remember something about that but I'm not really sure. This was the closest thing I could find on the subject. https://www.llnl....-03.html It states the amino acids could have formed from the inpact it's self.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 31, 2013
Gmr, I think you need to understand that conversing with obama_socks will do nothing more than inundate you in a mound of half-baked ideas. This guy seems pretty dumb on all accounts.

He masks profound intellectual laziness as a keen desire to learn and should not be awarded for it.


It is interesting to disentangle the different modes of, well, argument that present here. There are those who assault scientists as having a complex that requires them to invalidate others' beliefs, those who decry that they are under assault by those same scientists, those who claim ideas are oppressive if they invalidate other ideas, those who turn intellectual rigor in definition and criteria into dogmatic oppression.
-Gmr

FYI, JohnGee and BAKOON and a long list of other names are all sockpuppets of TheGhostofOtto1923. Blotto created them for the purpose of attacking me because Blotto believes, in his insanity that I am Pussycat_Eyes. I'm not.
Blotto demands lots of attention
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 31, 2013
@Gmr
If you wish to believe whatever Theghostofotto1923's sockpuppets say about me and others, you are, in reality, believing what Theghostofotto is saying. I have explained to Blotto countless times that I am not Pussycat_eyes or any of the other user names that he has accused me of, but Blotto relentlessly pursues me and others also, into whichever threads in which I, or they, comment, for the purpose of preventing them, or me from having our say.

But it's your decision. Blotto has many, many sockpuppets which he also uses to downvote the ratings of Noumenon and ryggesogn2, JulianPenrod and others whose posts he doesn't like, by Googling their old posts from years ago to bring down their ratings - and he also uses his sockpuppets to raise the scores of his sockpuppet, FrankHerbert and his main user name.

Theghostofotto1923 uses his sockpuppets as attack dogs to intimidate commenters who disagree with his philosophy. JohnGee and BAKOON are some of his newer puppets.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 31, 2013
@Q-Star

For the past 9 years since I first registered onto Physorg and commented under my primary name (which I no longer use in this Physorg), I have noticed that this Physorg is basically, (with a few exceptions), a den of amateurs who are on a massive ego trip to "show off their stuff" in order to prove to other similar egocentrics that they are extremely knowledgeable.

Vendicar and Theghostofotto1923 - with the help of their respective sockpuppets - are the top of the heap as to egocentricity...Vendicar being the Head Clown of Clown City, (in spite of his knowledge of Physics) and TGofO being just nasty and believing himself to be "King of Physorg" and head bouncer.

Try to keep this in mind when you come into a thread and see these two misfits and their sockpuppets.

I think a new attack is imminent. LOL
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 31, 2013
So, the questions ya ask are only rhetorical, and ya really don't wish an answer? That is difficult to understand. Is it a thing ya do just for fun or to some purpose?

Try to keep this in mind when you come into a thread and see these two misfits and their sockpuppets.

I think a new attack is imminent. LOL


Thanks for helping me with what I should keep in mind. Did ya think that I was somehow missing something? Hmmm, I though I was getting most of it. Though I am sure it was well intended, I'm rather hurt that ya think so little of my powers of observation.

Let the blood feud continue, my little dog is only a bassett hound and he's not up to that fight.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 31, 2013
Oh, and BTW, Evolution for some reason became a dirty word in Christian doctrine at some time after the theory was proposed and accepted by scientists as fact, along with the evidence for it. But it was the idea of descent from, and relative to, the apes, that turned Christians off to it. It just did not jibe with the Bible's claim that God created the first man and woman in his own image. There is nothing in Genesis to indicate that God created the first living cell, nor is there evidence that the cell just up and came alive all on its own.

To Christians of that time, the implication of man descending from an ape-like creature was too much to bear, because God could not have resembled an ape. This is powerful stuff.
Little did the Christians of that time (and this) suspect that evolution explains a lot, since it was God who created the first living cell from the pile of basic elements, and then coaxed that cell to be orderly enough to grow, thrive and EVOLVE after it was created.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 31, 2013
Q-Star...I didn't intend it as a sleight, just a heads-up in case you somehow missed the obvious.
Less hardy individuals have been intimidated by TGogO and his puppets and they seem to have either changed their name, or left the site entirely, with bad opinions of this Physorg. A shame, isn't it?
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 31, 2013
@Q-Star
Actually, most of my questions are not rhetorical. I expect acceptable answers. By acceptable, I don't mean just book learning answers. I mean answers that are not always predictable and "inside" the box. Imagination that is concurrent with good science is desirable and progressive. Imagination is in the realm of Philosophy, but without it, most of scientific experimentation would not be possible.
rug
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 31, 2013
Hey socks, here is the huge point you and every religion out there are missing or ignoring. When science gets to a point where there are theories. Scientist don't just raise their hands in the air and say "Oh, god did it" When scientist reach a point where something is not known they come up with ideas that may explain it. Then figure out ways to test these ideas. When religion comes to something they don't know or understand they say "God did it." and then refuse to see any evidence showing god didn't do it.

Only after long time scales has religion accepted some of the scientific evidence. That is how genesis became creationism then became intelligent design. Genesis didn't have any scientific evidence to back it up. Creationism used a little bit, but not much. With intelligent design religion is starting to see that changes in species has happened. Another 2-3 generations there will be something else that comes along and will allow religions to accept evolution.
rug
1.8 / 5 (15) Aug 31, 2013
Religions just seem to be a bit slower than the rest of us accepting tested theories as fact.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2013
evidence (aka not a book) then it would be considered. Until then, it's not even an option BECAUSE there is no evidence
Actually. anecdotal evidence is often useful for corroboration and consensus. We have found 1000s of clay tablets for instance from many civilizations around the fertile crescent recording commerce, conflict, and political interaction with each other... but none of them mentions the great kingdoms of solomon and david. Absolutely NONE.

This was a wealthy, conquering kingdom described as stretching from the mediterranean to the euphrates. But there is no written record of anyone ever having interacted with it whatsoever.

This embarrassing lack of evidence is damning evidence indeed.
Religions just seem to be a bit slower than the rest of us accepting tested theories as fact
Religions would never accept evidence which is contrary to their dogma unless they are forced to do so. They routinely ignore, defame, resist, fabricate, and adulterate evidence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (9) Aug 31, 2013
Hey socks, here is the huge point you and every religion out there are missing or ignoring. When science gets to a point where there are theories
Just keep in mind that you are encouraging someone who claims to be a $250k/yr NASA astronautical engineer while at the same time posting such inane bullshit as
"Zero population growth means exactly that - zero - meaning that in order to have absolute zero growth, NO babies are to be live births...If all the adults live to be 100 years, then it will mean that no new babies will be allowed to be born UNTIL ALL those adults have died first"
-and
"The cells would have to be broken down into its quantum components so that it can be "fluid" enough to travel along the circuitry connecting to the receiving lab"
-and
"increments are also conceptualized by the mind, as it doesn't naturally occur in nature"
-For much more lies and inanity in the same vein see my profile page
http://phys.org/p...tto1923/
Captain Stumpy
1.5 / 5 (16) Aug 31, 2013

I do remember something about that but I'm not really sure. This was the closest thing I could find on the subject. https://www.llnl....-03.html It states the amino acids could have formed from the inpact it's self.


@rug
thanks. that was similar to the article I remember.
I thought there was speculation that amino acids could have been formed in comets, then "seeded" Earth (and obviously other planets) where they could have developed to more complicated life... but as I can't find the magazine article, I cant give a reference.
rug
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 31, 2013
I remember reading that somewhere as well but I don't remember where or when. Like you, I can't find it anymore either.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (18) Aug 31, 2013
Hey socks, here is the huge point you and every religion out there are missing or ignoring. When science gets to a point where there are theories. Scientist don't just raise their hands in the air and say "Oh, god did it"


Of course God didn't do it. God gave free will to man so that he could better himself.

When scientist reach a point where something is not known they come up with ideas that may explain it. Then figure out ways to test these ideas.


That is commendable. That's experimentation using logic, reason and imagination.

When religion comes to something they don't know or understand they say "God did it." and then refuse to see any evidence showing god didn't do it.
-rug

That may be true only of SOME religions such as Islam and certain fundamentalists. But it's not true of all. I and many others don't place the onus on God for everything good or bad. We understand that it is MAN who makes mistakes and successes. God is passive and observes.
obama_socks
1.4 / 5 (18) Aug 31, 2013

Only after long time scales has religion accepted some of the scientific evidence. That is how genesis became creationism then became intelligent design.


Intelligent design, ie the Intelligence we call God has always existed and always will. By whichever name the continuity is called doesn't matter. What matters is the recognition of that Intelligence as having been the Creator, especially of the first one-celled creature that lived through the intervention of God. CHNOPS by itself didn't do it. Otherwise, life would be found on Mars and elsewhere too.

Genesis didn't have any scientific evidence to back it up. Creationism used a little bit, but not much. With intelligent design religion is starting to see that changes in species has happened. Another 2-3 generations there will be something else that comes along and will allow religions to accept evolution.
-rug

I am a Christian and I have always accepted evolution as a normal process for life.
obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (19) Aug 31, 2013
Captain Stumpy
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 31, 2013
thanks. the article http://newscenter...n-earth/ is the article I read, but it was posted in a magazine, and i thought there was more ...

so, if amino acids and dipeptides can be formed in comets, it seems to me that it is more possible that planet bound life was "seeded" from comets as from rocks from Mars.

how traumatic of an event on Mars is it to have a rock that exits one atmosphere and then transferred to another... in fact, wouldn't both atmosphere's add a significant amount of heat to the Martian rock? that would mean some kind of extremophile, right? but, again, the event that transfers that rock would be quite large... i would think, anyway.
Q-Star
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2013
how traumatic of an event on Mars is it to have a rock that exits one atmosphere and then transferred to another... .


An excellent & thoughtful approach ya're using there, ya are thinking beyond the articles.

Careful of being dazzled by things reported in the Journals, ya have to be able to weigh them properly. The journals are primarily where researchers report on how they are doing their work & what results they are getting. Ultimate Definitive Truths are not reported in journals. What I mean, is molecules are not life. They can be formed as easily here as anywhere else,,, they are not necessarily an "EUREKA" find, it's still a very long leap to said life probably was seeded from space.

Many kinds of molecules are found in space, & the search is young. Here's a link that will get ya started. Work into the subject in a linear & structured way,,, ya'll get to the deep end twice as fast,

http://en.wikiped...olecules
Captain Stumpy
1.5 / 5 (16) Aug 31, 2013
@Q-Star
thanks.
what i guess i was thinking was more along the lines of: if complex molecules like amino acids and dipeptides can be formed in space, wouldn't it be possible that those molecules, once relocated to Earth, speed up the process of life, or of the creation of life?
BAKOON
1.8 / 5 (15) Sep 01, 2013
Their self-condemnation will prove their undoing when they die and each one's Soul is forced to remain in the body and can FEEL the agonies of being part of a rotting corpse.

The Soul of an evil person will feel all the pains of a hellish existence as it is placed in the ground in darkness that is blacker than night. It has time for reflection of its evil ways and evil thoughts, words and deeds that it had while it lived.

The evil person's Soul doesn't experience the FIRES of hell immediately. No, it has to wait a very long time until the Sun goes supernova and envelopes and draws the Earth into it.
When this happens, all evil Souls, including demons, will burn for eternity.
I say it again what it I believe to be true in spite of what preachers say.
-Obama_socks/Captain Stumpy, King Idiot

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2013
wouldn't both atmosphere's add a significant amount of heat to the Martian rock? that would mean some kind of extremophile, right?

Couple of thoughts on this one:

Even quite small meteorites show almost no heat transferred to their core from their passage through Earth's atmosphere. This is because the passage is quite short, and the heat energy is converted into phase-change energy (solid to liquid in the melting/ablating process on the surface).
Mars atmosphere effects are negligible by comparison, as it is only 1% as dense as Earth's atmosphere. So I'm not sure an extremophile is necessary to survive that.
Comets aren't ALL ice.

Microbes - and especially smaller stuff like amino acids - are also very much insensitive to large g-forces.

As to the problem of radically different atmospheres being not compatible with life from anywhere else: Since most rocks land in the ocean that may not be such a huge problem.
katesisco
1 / 5 (16) Sep 01, 2013
Rare Earth by P Ward and D Brownlee page 54: ....initial land mass was small and was not until half way through its history that land covered more than 10 % of the Earth Surface. By about 4.5 years ago Earth was built.
The book was pub in 2000
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 01, 2013
@Q-Star
thanks.
what i guess i was thinking was more along the lines of: if complex molecules like amino acids and dipeptides can be formed in space, wouldn't it be possible that those molecules, once relocated to Earth, speed up the process of life, or of the creation of life?


But keep in mind the underlying big picture,,,, these things may not be unique molecules,,, it maybe that organic chemistry is a ubiquitous physical process, that happens whenever and wherever the atoms are available to combine.

Just because ya see a molecule here,,,,, and that same molecule there,,,, doesn't mean the came from a common origin. That's true for molecular hydrogen, or amino acids. In the right conditions it's not a matter of "if" they will combine,,, if the conditions are right, they "will" combine. That's because it is a natural process, a physical process.

Life is unique, chaos is involved with it's emergence, that is the "holy grail".
Aaron1980
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2013
makes sense also because mars being farther out from the sun and smaller than earth it would have cooled sooner in the creation of the solar system to be more hospitable to life a significant amount of time before earth. Likewise perhaps with other suitable bodies farther out than Mars.

... also since knocking out pieces of planets occurs readily and their trajectories can be flung out of the solar system there is no reason why life did not come to our solar system from another solar system....

... and with this game of cosmic billiards going on in our galaxy for billions of years there should be all kinds of life spread out in our vicinity of the galaxy if not all over it and beyond
Aaron1980
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2013
I will be very surprised if there are not fossils on mars of things a lot bigger than bacteria and viruses. A Tardigarde could live on Mars today if an earth rock with some on it landed there
stookified
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2013
Is this not a scientific website? Why are there morons quoting the bible?
Noumenon
1.1 / 5 (15) Sep 01, 2013
Interesting, but this article sounds like a lot of simplification of the arguments that doesn't cover a lot of possibilities for how life starting on earth could of overcame these difficulties.


Yes, the notion that it is more probable that life started on Mars and somehow transported to earth on a rock without being obliterated, than simply that the knowledge of how life started on earth is lacking,.... is an example of how paradigm and arrogance can lead science into absurdity.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 01, 2013
Religions just seem to be a bit slower than the rest of us accepting tested theories as fact

Religions would never accept evidence which is contrary to their dogma unless they are forced to do so. They routinely ignore, defame, resist, fabricate, and adulterate evidence. - TheGhostofOtto1923


For someone who rejects religion, you seem to post more about it than any other member.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2013
Objectively you would have to admit that religionists post much more volume than me. I am an antireligionist. That's my job. I am also antiphilo. That's my other job. It is nice to have work that you enjoy yes?

I have noted that objectivity is rare in both these groups. I think it is because it tends to weaken their case.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (9) Sep 01, 2013
For instance
paradigm... arrogance... absurdity
-This opinion of yours is not really derived from any objective examination of the evidence now is it? If it was you may have reached a conclusion similar to the researcher, that the possibility does indeed exist.

But you didn't, opting instead for a feel-good belch full of greasy innuendo. Feel better? That's nice.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 01, 2013
The question is not just that it is possible in principal. Science should always seek the simplest and most probable explanation. I'm aware of objective evidence that we are here, and of the lack of evidence of life on mars.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2013
According to the article the questions which led to the study were 1) where could the oxydized molybdenum have come from if it wasn't available on earth during the appropriate timeframe, and 2) where could RNA have formed if the earth was covered in water at that time?

This study offered one viable alternative - mars, which lends credence to an existing theory. I assume they explored others but I also assume the investigation continues, including plans to look for life on mars.

But finding it won't mean that it originated there, just as not finding it would mean that it didn't exist there at a time appropriate for seeding the earth.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 01, 2013
The question is not just that it is possible in principal. Science should always seek the simplest and most probable explanation. I'm aware of objective evidence that we are here, and of the lack of evidence of life on mars.
-Noumenon

I'm inclined to agree that in spite of years of elementary probing with current or contemporary technology, there has been no evidence of living material or even a fistful of CHNOPS discovered on the surface of Mars. If ever there was life on that planet, the odds that the artifacts of its former existence may still exist today, are incredibly small.
Whereas, artifacts from a range of millions of years are readily found on Earth. The possibility that a rock bearing the proper amounts of the elements necessary for life flying through space and landing on the Earth is not too impossible. But such a rock landing in a place where the right conditions exist for the elements to come together to produce life ALL BY ITSELF, is astronomically small.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2013
But such a rock landing in a place where the right conditions exist for the elements to come together to produce life ALL BY ITSELF, is astronomically small.


There may be 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe. With an average of 200,000,000,000 stars such as Sun in each one of them,,,,, the thing ya say has an astronomically small chance of happening has had astronomically large number of those small chances. That's 2 x 10^22,,, and that over the course of 10 plus billions of years.

That's where the anthropic principle fails,,,,, we are not in a special place, we are in one place out of 2 x 10^22 places.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 01, 2013
Presumably, the first organically created cell on Earth required protection for its various processes to prevent changing environmental conditions such as too much dry or wet, too much sunlight or shade, too much cold from harming or killing it. After its initial creation, it would have needed to adapt to sudden fluctuations in temperatures and other conditions. If it were able to adapt quickly and was deposited in a place with a natural protective environment, it would have been afforded optimal conditions for it to procreate or divide itself, grow, and evolve into a much larger entity...possibly similar to a blastoma.

It would have needed to split off into two individual cells or cell mass in order to eventually procreate sexually. At this point, it would be unidentifiable as to whether it was a future plant or animal until it had evolved over a period of millions of years. Creation was not accomplished in 6 days, despite what is written in Genesis1.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 01, 2013
According to Genesis1, after the land mass was raised and the waters divided into seas, seeds were created and the first plants and grasses grew on that land. That makes it then highly probable that the organically created cell was animal and not plant as I mistakenly said in the above post. That makes much more sense, since plant life haven't the exact same requirements as animal life or the same living conditions.

@Q-Star
Our species may never set foot on most of those worlds or even send probes to examine each one. Our kind may expire long before some of us could get from here to there, so the point you are making is moot. All we have is Earth, and maybe Mars for many thousands of years. Even if we build such a thing as a "warp drive", we still could not get to another galaxy until such a galaxy comes closer to us.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 01, 2013
@Q-Star
About the only thing I can think of that we as a species could build in order to get from our home to another galaxy quite safely, is to build an artificial Earth. Not the same size, of course, but similar although far smaller. The core would be the machinery, guidance and propulsion systems and the oxygen and water producing - filtering plants. Above the core would be the living quarters, a medium-sized city to accommodate perhaps a million people such as scientists, engineers, physicians, educators, a certain amount of AI. Oh, and did I mention engineers?

Over the city there could be a dome with lights to simulate the stars as we pass them and a light source. In the same level crops could be grown and artificially made meat also grown for consumption. The dome would be a protective covering since our ship is traveling in a vacuum.
The going would be extremely slow and generations would live and die before we could get to another galaxy.
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2013
About the only thing I can think of that we as a species could build in order to get from our home to another galaxy quite safely, is to build an artificial Earth. Not the same size, of course, but similar although far smaller. The core would be the machinery, guidance and propulsion systems ad the oxygen and water producing - filtering plants. A the core would be the living quarters, a medium-sized city to accomodate perhaps a million people such as scientists, engineers, physicians, educators, a certain amount of AI. Oh, and did I mention engineers?

Over the city there could be a dome lights to simulate the stars as we pass them and a light source. In the same level crops could be grown and artificially made meat also grown for consumption. The dome would be a protective covering since our ship is traveling in a vacuum.
The going would be extremely slow and generations would live and die before we could get to another galaxy.


Now would be a good time to put down the bong.
BAKOON
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2013
Their self-condemnation will prove their undoing when they die and each one's Soul is forced to remain in the body and can FEEL the agonies of being part of a rotting corpse.

The Soul of an evil person will feel all the pains of a hellish existence as it is placed in the ground in darkness that is blacker than night. It has time for reflection of its evil ways and evil thoughts, words and deeds that it had while it lived.

The evil person's Soul doesn't experience the FIRES of hell immediately. No, it has to wait a very long time until the Sun goes supernova and envelopes and draws the Earth into it.
When this happens, all evil Souls, including demons, will burn for eternity.
I say it again what it I believe to be true in spite of what preachers say.
-Obama_socks, King Idiot

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 01, 2013
@Q-Star

It doesn't matter anyway. We will all be 6 feet under by or before 2113. But if you really don't like my suggestion for a new kind of spaceship, I will not draw up the design and work out the plans for it to be built in the future before the Sun explodes. It would be too similar to a "slow boat to China" anyways. Too slow for those in a hurry.

(BAKOON/BABOON/Theghostofotto1923 seems really perturbed/agitated now. Somehow, I don't think Blotto likes my predictions of his physical and spiritual agony and pain after his own death. I can't imagine why. But then, I'M not the one who curses out and maligns God for no good reason.

BAKOON will continue to post all my comments, of course. That should make the moderators happy, aye?. :]}
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 01, 2013
@Q-Star

Another thing I need to know. Back when the chunk of rock from Mars landed on Earth all loaded up nicely with CHNOPS, Molybdenum and all that good stuff...exactly WHAT was the "CATALYST" which made it possible for all those nice elements to come together and cling so hard for the purpose of creating - uh, I mean - building - no no, that's not it..ok, I've got it now...starting up the first life form on Earth.
I will lose sleep if I don't find this out, you see. If YOU don't know...then who does?
BAKOON
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
We will all be 6 feet under by or before 2113. But if you really don't like my suggestion for a new kind of spaceship, I will not draw up the design and work out the plans for it to be built in the future before the Sun explodes.
-Obama_socks, Tard of Tards

So now he thinks he knows the end date and could save humanity, but won't because someone on a forum criticized him. Kids, this is what we call SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2013
Awwww...BAKOON/BABOON/Theghostofotto1923 loves me. He truly loves me.
Yuck...I feel so...violated.

Heheheh...looks like BAKOON is the one with the severe mental illness. BAKOON thinks there are kids here. Could be he's a child molester.
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2013
Those with SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS are far more prone to the psychological phenomenon known as PROJECTION. This means his subconscious accuses others of things he does he knows to be wrong. This is all according to my friend who is a Kenyan psychologist.

So Obama_socks just admitted to being a child molester. His alter egos have admitted to pederasty in the past.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2013
Oh wait...now I remember who BAKOON sounds like, so to speak.

The voice on the boob tube situation comedy called, "How I Met Your Mother" The one who says, "Kids, _ _ _ _ _ "

Actually no, I don't KNOW the end date. But it shouldn't be TOO far into the future, given certain parameters that I and some others have been calculating in our spare time with the supported technical data that's available.
BAKOON
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
Actually no, I don't KNOW the end date. But it shouldn't be TOO far into the future, given certain parameters that I and some others have been calculating in our spare time with the supported technical data that's available.


Complete and total idiocy.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
yep...if you say so, then it must be true
BAKOON
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2013
There is some more psychological PROJECTION from Obama_socks, King Idiot.

So this know-nothing believes he knows when the world will end, and is literally greater than Noah. Noah received his blueprints from God, but Obama_socks is going to draw up a multi-generational ark spaceship all on his own. He also has arcane knowledge of the afterlife no mortal should posess.

But I'm the arrogant one. Right.

Also, as a child molester it is your duty to kill yourself. You raped your children you sick fuck.
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
@Q-star
thanks for the patience... i am trying to learn. so... i will keep trying.

@Bakoon
i am not obama_socks. but you know that, i think... and that is why you are a troll. you are only here to criticize and to spread your opinions and hate, and i have yet to see you engage in any discussion with real thoughtful inclusions into the subject matter at hand. Therefor, you are the very definition of TROLL! you only want to have a flame war.
well, flame away. i am going to start ignoring you, because it is obvious that you are not really all that intelligent. you only come here to flame others. is that where you think your talents lie? you write what you know? so sad for you.

@obama_socks
actually, kids DO come here. that is why all this bickering is kinda sad.
BAKOON
Sep 02, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2013
@Q-star
I got that Sean Carroll book today "The Particle At The End Of The Universe" ... great so far, thanks for the heads up.
have u read any more of his stuff?
thanks for the info. PEACE
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
@CaptainStumpy

I recently bought 2 great books authored by Dr. Ben Carson..."Think Big" and "Gifted Hands". His story is very inspiring. Dr. Carson is one of the prominent Black men that I mentioned in a previous thread the other day along with other great men such as Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Clarence Thomas and others.
BAKOON called these amazing Black men "Uncle Toms".
howhot was in that thread and she/he didn't say a word about BAKOON's racial slur. But that's typical racist Progressive attitudes.
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2013
I am a black man. Sowell and Thomas are race traitors.
Their self-condemnation will prove their undoing when they die and each one's Soul is forced to remain in the body and can FEEL the agonies of being part of a rotting corpse.

The Soul of an evil person will feel all the pains of a hellish existence as it is placed in the ground in darkness that is blacker than night. It has time for reflection of its evil ways and evil thoughts, words and deeds that it had while it lived.

The evil person's Soul doesn't experience the FIRES of hell immediately. No, it has to wait a very long time until the Sun goes supernova and envelopes and draws the Earth into it.
When this happens, all evil Souls, including demons, will burn for eternity.
I say it again what it I believe to be true in spite of what preachers say.
-Obama_socks, Racist idiot

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2013
obama_socks
are these books about science or physics? if they are, I would love to read them. I am reading some others (the female brain, the male brain, the decisive moment, an For the love of Physics).
I don't care about race.
thanks
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
Neither science or physics. It's Dr. Carson's personal story of how a Black man in America endured a lot of racism but had the "right stuff" to go on his own with his God-given talents and desire to succeed. He didn't depend on Affirmative Action to get him where he is and is one of the top surgeons in the U.S. in his field.
You have to wonder...if he could do it, then why can't everyone else, Black, White or Asian do it too.
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2013
Their self-condemnation will prove their undoing when they die and each one's Soul is forced to remain in the body and can FEEL the agonies of being part of a rotting corpse.

The Soul of an evil person will feel all the pains of a hellish existence as it is placed in the ground in darkness that is blacker than night. It has time for reflection of its evil ways and evil thoughts, words and deeds that it had while it lived.

The evil person's Soul doesn't experience the FIRES of hell immediately. No, it has to wait a very long time until the Sun goes supernova and envelopes and draws the Earth into it.
When this happens, all evil Souls, including demons, will burn for eternity.
I say it again what it I believe to be true in spite of what preachers say.
-Obama_socks, Racist Idiot

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2013
BAKOON is no Black man...he's just trying to get in on the conversation...but no Black man would make a racist remark about other Black men being Uncle Toms in a science website where there may be other Black men who would take offense at that remark. I think BAKOON is some White guy racist Progressive who just wants to offend as many people as possible.
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
Obama_socks
are you assuming that there is no racism today? there is, and it can be varied in how it is shown. My daughter is wading through it now in college. then there are places where it is overt and ugly, and well established in the community, like around Pine Ridge reservation. some people cant cope well with the negative pressure. my daughter is trying, but it is having an effect on her... whereas I never cared what anyone thought. I DO have some buttons, though.
not everyone has the same ability to cope. or to persevere in the face of what they perceive as an avalanche of negativity. some thrive in it. then there are some that have NO control over their torment
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2013
Theghostofotto's sockpuppet, FrankHerbert was doing that kind of thing for a long time...race-baiting other commenters so he could accuse them as being racists. howhot was in on it too.

Turned out that FrankHerbert and Ghostofotto were the same person, but I knew that from years before, even while he was otto1932 and Blotto's other names from before that...otto1882 and many more. I've been signing on this website for about 9 years on one other name.
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2013
.but no Black man would make a racist remark about other Black men being Uncle Toms in a science website where there may be other Black men who would take offense at that remark.
That makes no sense you racist idiot. Now I'm going to post some more of your dumbass quotes.

We will all be 6 feet under by or before 2113. But if you really don't like my suggestion for a new kind of spaceship, I will not draw up the design and work out the plans for it to be built in the future before the Sun explodes.


Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
you may be right about BAKOON. he only comes to comment to incite anger... the epitome of TROLL.
he will pay for his actions.
BAKOON
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2013
Captain Stupid is pretty obviously Obama_socks. He suffers from MULTIPLE PERSONALITY DISORDER and really believes his sockpuppets are unique people. What a sad idiot.
Their self-condemnation will prove their undoing when they die and each one's Soul is forced to remain in the body and can FEEL the agonies of being part of a rotting corpse.

The Soul of an evil person will feel all the pains of a hellish existence as it is placed in the ground in darkness that is blacker than night. It has time for reflection of its evil ways and evil thoughts, words and deeds that it had while it lived.

The evil person's Soul doesn't experience the FIRES of hell immediately. No, it has to wait a very long time until the Sun goes supernova and envelopes and draws the Earth into it.
When this happens, all evil Souls, including demons, will burn for eternity.
I say it again what it I believe to be true in spite of what preachers say.
-Obama_socks/Captain Stumpy, Supreme Moron
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2013
Sorry about your daughter, Stumpy. It must be very hard for her, but all she has to do is to ignore the ignorant as long as they don't physically harm her. Sure there's racism everywhere, even Blacks against Blacks and it happens with little kids too. There's reverse racism like in this:

http://www.livele...77453339
BAKOON
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
The best example of reverse racism you can come up with is a few children?

Here's a link to REAL racism you ignorant shitface:
http://en.wikiped...d_States
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2013
@bakoon TROLL
and all this still isnt proof enough to you that i am not obama_socks? what... do you think there are several computers logged in at the same time around one person having this conversation with you? sigh... like i said, you just like being a TROLL and starting flame wars.

Obama_socks
actually, blacks treat her worse. she lives down south and is in the engineering program at school... and because she is articulate and doesnt do that "gansta" crap, they are quite mean to her. i keep telling her that it is hard, but to stand strong. i taught her well enough... she graduated high school a year early. she was trying to beat me
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2013
Nope...BAKOON is definitely NOT Black. There's no excuse for such behavior no matter what color, and most Blacks are too refined to come into a science website just to rant about racism and persist in attempting to ruin the discussion in the thread. BAKOON hasn't kept to the topic in all the time its been in here OR in the other threads.
Anyone who goes into a discussion just to talk race, race, race is obviously a racist himself
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2013
The best example of reverse racism you can come up with is a few children?

Here's a link to REAL racism you ignorant shitface:
http://en.wikiped...d_States


that is the PAST! there is racism still alive today. ask anyone on Pine Ridge Res.
BAKOON
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
You're racist. I win.
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2013
leaving BUFOON to its rant. this was supposed to be about science. sorry i let it degrade this far.
it is a TROLL, the more off topic, and the more flame, the better for it!
PEACE till tomorrow yall
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2013
Well, that seems to be one of the main problems within the Black community. The culture is damaging to kids who just want to get a good education and make something of themselves when they graduate. But dysfunctional schools and Progressive administrators and educators are quite at fault. Their lack of discipline shows up every time from both school and home. Discipline is key to success in America...and self-discipline is a cuss word in certain areas. But it was the Progressives who started all of this garbage in the U.S. and it is the Black community who is paying with the lives and futures of their children.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 02, 2013
night Stumpy
Pet_mar
2 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2013
We have to remember that there is substantialy no magnetic field on Mars.
That means the solar wind would reach Mars' surface and not been concentrated near the magnetic poles as on Earth.
This "radiation" would probably destroy all signs of live on the planet.
Even if the "radiation" would cause the chemical/physical reactions needed to generate living matery, it would be killed very soon.
Pet_mar
1.9 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2013
Today it is more CO on Mars than CO2 in Earth atmosphere.
It must be prooved that the presence of CO (killing for us) would not disturb the process of photosynthesis on Mars (there is plenty of CO2 but little O2 on Mars)
rug
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
@Pet_mar
There is evidence of a much stronger magnetic field on Mars few of billions years. That would have blocked a lot more of the radiation. There are also some known microbial life (extremophiles) that can survive high amounts of radiation.

CO is not really much of a problem for some microbial life, again extremophiles here on earth.

Most of the life on earth does not require O2 at all so it's not beyond reason to think some form of microbial life to have developed on Mars at some point and may have thrived for a few billion years.

There is also the point that we only have one statistical point of reference for life. It's not beyond reason to think there may be other forms of life out there somewhere in the cosmos and maybe in our own backyard so to speak.
Pet_mar
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2013
You' right.
Some theories say that live could probably be created near volcanos on the Earth.
There should we expect some higher concentration of CO.
So may be it does not disturb the process of creating live.