Discovery Of Life On Mars Would Not Help Darwinist Cause

http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/07/martian-life.html


Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Martian Life



Life on Mars would have no impact on the strength of the cosmological
ID argument. However, the absence of such life would land in the win
column for privileged-planet type arguments. At the same time a lack of
Martian life would be an easier pill for evolutionary biology to
swallow.

If primitive life is discovered on Mars, some will say "see, not only
is earth not privileged, not only is life not rare, but in fact it is
so common that we find it on our next-door neighbor. Any discussion of
one in a gazillion chance is clearly nonsense."

Bzzt. Sorry, the more sensible response is: the conditions for complex
are exceedingly rare in the universe. And given that earth had to be in
the right part of the right kind of solar system, with the right kind
of satellite, and the right kind of star, and the right planetary
companions, in the right part of the right type of galaxy, in the right
cluster of galaxies, of the right age, in a universe with the correct
laws and constants-well if I were taking bets on the next most likely
place to find life, I'd look first at earth's nearest neighbors,
reckoning that they are closest to being in the habitable zone. If I
can't live at the oasis, I'll settle for being within walking distance.

If any place other than earth should have life, it should be Mars. If
Mars has primitive life (that didn't originate on earth-that would
have to be ruled out) then it is because of its proximity to a favored
location in the universe-not a sign that life is cheap and easy.

Personally, I don't think we will find evidence of non-terrestrial
primitive life on Mars. New data from the European OMEGA satellite
confirms Mar's lack of substantial water, or of any significant
hydro-activity on Mars for the last 3.5 billion years.1 So when there
was water on Mars, the solar system was at its most inhospitable-with
the inner planets subjected to frequent life-quenching impacts from
comets and asteroids.

It's fun to test the predictability of evolutionary biology by asking
those practiced in that science to predict what life on Mars will be
like, should we discover it. If you get an answer (not likely) and
distill it to its essence, it will be along the lines of "Oh, I don't
know, but whatever it is will be consistent with evolution." Can you
imagine a physicist stating "Oh, I don't know even the gross details of
the orbit of Mars, but whatever it is it will be consistent with
gravitation."

Then again, if I were an evolutionary biologist I would be hoping that
no life was found on Mars. I would not want to explain how earth
(without being privileged) supports complex life while microbes on Mars
remained microbes. I'd much rather Mars be sterile, so that I could
blame the great evolutionary scapegoat, abiogenesis. A lifeless Mars
permits the argument that "yes the origin of life is (possibly) rare,
but if life were to have started on Mars, it would have evolved (as all
life should, evolutionarily speaking) into more and more complex
forms."

To summarize, and perhaps counter-intuitively, non-terrestrial microbes
on Mars would be neutral in its impact on cosmological ID. It would be
problematic for evolutionary biology, which would have to explain why
evolution was so impotent on Mars. A sterile Mars, or a Mars whose only
life consists microbes emigrating from earth, would bolster the
privileged planet arguments, and yet provide an escape for evolution,
which could, as it always does, sweep its most difficult problem under
the
I'm-covering-my-ears-and-not-hearing-you-because-abiogenesis-is-a-different-discipline
rug.

Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/07/martian-life.html


Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Martian Life



Life on Mars would have no impact on the strength of the cosmological
ID argument. However, the absence of such life would land in the win
column for privileged-planet type arguments. At the same time a lack of
Martian life would be an easier pill for evolutionary biology to
swallow.

If primitive life is discovered on Mars, some will say "see, not only
is earth not privileged, not only is life not rare, but in fact it is
so common that we find it on our next-door neighbor. Any discussion of
one in a gazillion chance is clearly nonsense."

Bzzt. Sorry, the more sensible response is: the conditions for complex
are exceedingly rare in the universe.

Bzzt, sorry, you are a dumb****.

And given that earth had to be in
the right part of the right kind of solar system, with the right kind
of satellite, and the right kind of star, and the right planetary
companions, in the right part of the right type of galaxy, in the right
cluster of galaxies, of the right age, in a universe with the correct
laws and constants-well if I were taking bets on the next most likely
place to find life, I'd look first at earth's nearest neighbors,
reckoning that they are closest to being in the habitable zone. If I
can't live at the oasis, I'll settle for being within walking distance.

Welcome to planet Earth.

If any place other than earth should have life, it should be Mars.

The universe is awful big. Just Mars? You're sure about that?

If Mars has primitive life (that didn't originate on earth-that would
have to be ruled out) then it is because of its proximity to a favored
location in the universe-not a sign that life is cheap and easy.

Mars almost certainly was alive in its early history.

Personally, I don't think we will find evidence of non-terrestrial
primitive life on Mars. New data from the European OMEGA satellite
confirms Mar's lack of substantial water, or of any significant
hydro-activity on Mars for the last 3.5 billion years.1 So when there
was water on Mars, the solar system was at its most inhospitable-with
the inner planets subjected to frequent life-quenching impacts from
comets and asteroids.

First of all, Mars is loaded with water. You'd have to be an idiot to
miss that. Sure, the top few centimeters of the surface are now very
dry, but the atmosphere is saturated, the poles are covered with vast
ice sheets, and the high latitudes are saturated with ice in at least
the top meter or so. All the evidence points to a water saturated Mars.

Earth was also bombarded mercilessly in its youth, and life did just
fine. Those same impacts certainly seeded a wet and warm early Mars.

It's fun to test the predictability of evolutionary biology by asking
those practiced in that science to predict what life on Mars will be
like, should we discover it. If you get an answer (not likely) and
distill it to its essence, it will be along the lines of "Oh, I don't
know, but whatever it is will be consistent with evolution." Can you
imagine a physicist stating "Oh, I don't know even the gross details of
the orbit of Mars, but whatever it is it will be consistent with
gravitation."

Then again, if I were an evolutionary biologist I would be hoping that
no life was found on Mars.

That would make you a geologist, certainly no astrobiologist thinks
that. Now that we have clearly established that early Mars was alive,
the question is rather, how far did it get, and what happened to it.

I would not want to explain how earth
(without being privileged) supports complex life while microbes on Mars
remained microbes. I'd much rather Mars be sterile, so that I could
blame the great evolutionary scapegoat, abiogenesis. A lifeless Mars
permits the argument that "yes the origin of life is (possibly) rare,
but if life were to have started on Mars, it would have evolved (as all
life should, evolutionarily speaking) into more and more complex
forms."

My god, you are dumber than ****. Where do these people come from?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
.com...

Bzzt. Sorry, the more sensible response is: the conditions for complex are
exceedingly rare in the universe.

And you've survey how many star systems?

--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC

"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com

There is no Darwinist cause.

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/07/martian-life.html


Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Martian Life



Life on Mars would have no impact on the strength of the cosmological
ID argument. However, the absence of such life would land in the win
column for privileged-planet type arguments. At the same time a lack of
Martian life would be an easier pill for evolutionary biology to
swallow.

If primitive life is discovered on Mars, some will say "see, not only
is earth not privileged, not only is life not rare, but in fact it is
so common that we find it on our next-door neighbor. Any discussion of
one in a gazillion chance is clearly nonsense."

Bzzt. Sorry, the more sensible response is: the conditions for complex
are exceedingly rare in the universe.

Bzzt, sorry, you are a dumb****.

And given that earth had to be in
the right part of the right kind of solar system, with the right kind
of satellite, and the right kind of star, and the right planetary
companions, in the right part of the right type of galaxy, in the right
cluster of galaxies, of the right age, in a universe with the correct
laws and constants-well if I were taking bets on the next most likely
place to find life, I'd look first at earth's nearest neighbors,
reckoning that they are closest to being in the habitable zone. If I
can't live at the oasis, I'll settle for being within walking distance.

Welcome to planet Earth.

If any place other than earth should have life, it should be Mars.

The universe is awful big. Just Mars? You're sure about that?

If Mars has primitive life (that didn't originate on earth-that would
have to be ruled out) then it is because of its proximity to a favored
location in the universe-not a sign that life is cheap and easy.

Mars almost certainly was alive in its early history.

Personally, I don't think we will find evidence of non-terrestrial
primitive life on Mars. New data from the European OMEGA satellite
confirms Mar's lack of substantial water, or of any significant
hydro-activity on Mars for the last 3.5 billion years.1 So when there
was water on Mars, the solar system was at its most inhospitable-with
the inner planets subjected to frequent life-quenching impacts from
comets and asteroids.

First of all, Mars is loaded with water. You'd have to be an idiot to miss
that. Sure, the top few centimeters of the surface are now very dry, but
the atmosphere is saturated, the poles are covered with vast ice sheets,
and the high latitudes are saturated with ice in at least the top meter or
so. All the evidence points to a water saturated Mars.

Earth was also bombarded mercilessly in its youth, and life did just fine.
Those same impacts certainly seeded a wet and warm early Mars.

It's fun to test the predictability of evolutionary biology by asking
those practiced in that science to predict what life on Mars will be
like, should we discover it. If you get an answer (not likely) and
distill it to its essence, it will be along the lines of "Oh, I don't
know, but whatever it is will be consistent with evolution." Can you
imagine a physicist stating "Oh, I don't know even the gross details of
the orbit of Mars, but whatever it is it will be consistent with
gravitation."

Then again, if I were an evolutionary biologist I would be hoping that
no life was found on Mars.

That would make you a geologist, certainly no astrobiologist thinks that.
Now that we have clearly established that early Mars was alive, the
question is rather, how far did it get, and what happened to it.

I would not want to explain how earth
(without being privileged) supports complex life while microbes on Mars
remained microbes. I'd much rather Mars be sterile, so that I could
blame the great evolutionary scapegoat, abiogenesis. A lifeless Mars
permits the argument that "yes the origin of life is (possibly) rare,
but if life were to have started on Mars, it would have evolved (as all
life should, evolutionarily speaking) into more and more complex
forms."

My god, you are dumber than ****. Where do these people come from?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Forget Mars. What about the life forms living thousands of feet in the
deepest parts of planet earth? Did 'God' create these creatures for the
benefit of mankind? Perhaps to entertain himself? (Sort of like having his
own personal aquarium.) Were any or most of them killed in 'Noah's Flood'
too? Those creatures who live without receiving *any* energy from the sun
but strictly from methane or sulphates? Did 'God' name these critters? Or
did Adam?

Speaking of the Almighty: Why in the world would his Magnificence-ness
'create' life forms (species) only to kill them off. What? Gets 'bored' with
certain life forms? Needs a change of scenery? Can't do that without killing
off whole populations of life forms? Into death, your 'God'. Isn't he?

Greywolf

Greywolf wrote:

Forget Mars.

Right, you want me to forget what I can plainly see. Well, I can kinda
see it, it's pretty dim right now. Let me see. Yup, there it is.

That's so ... scientific!

Forget you.

plonk

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

Life on Mars would have no impact on the strength
of the cosmological ID argument. However, the
absence of such life would land in the win
column for privileged-planet type arguments.

This doesn't make sense.

Pretending that they have to find life on Mars or that
supports creationism is like pretending that if you
don't find roses growing in my garden then roses don't
exist.

Although it's true that the discovery of life on Mars wouldn't
be a guaranteed end to the strict creationists, it would
certainly be a blow. And, the absence of life on Mars
could never be honestly represented as "evidence" in favor
of strict creationism.

In many ways, the discovery of life on Mars would generate
far more issues for science than would it's absence. If for
no other reason, unless we're talking about really
ancient fossilized life, there's always the possibility that it
only recently arrived on Mars from an Earth probe.

Fossilized life, too, might have originated on Earth. A
meteorite or comet could have struck the Earth hundreds
of millions of years ago, ejecting material into space.
Microbes within the material could potenitally survive such
an event, eventually reaching Mars.

About the only way to satisfactorly "Prove" that life on Mars
was truly "Martian" life -- and not transplanted Earth life --
would be to either compare it's genetic structure to Earth
life (if it's alive now) or establish that it's too old or too
highly developed to have come from Earth (for fossilized
life).

Pretending that the absence of life on Mars would be a
blow to science is a classic example of a false test. The
fact is, at no time has the scientific model required life
on Mars. Conditions on Mars are currently pretty hostile
towards life. Although life on Earth seems to adapt to
any & every condition, the assumption here is that the
life itself already existed (already developed) and than
later ADAPTED to those hostile conditions.

Although the current belief is that conditions on Mars
were once different -- perhaps very favorable for the
development of life -- we simply do not have as clear
a picture of early Mars as we'd like. We also don't know
how long, exactly, Mars had these favorable conditions,
or even how long is long enough.

A lifeless Mars permits the argument that "yes the origin of life is (possibly) rare, but if
life were to have started on Mars, it would have evolved (as all life should, evolutionarily
speaking) into more and more complex forms."

Trumpet *is* a dumb ****, its not him we should answer to but the
original authors he keeps quoting.

This is in answer to David whatshislastname:
There are still bacteria on Earth...even though bacteria in the past
have evolved into all current forms of life. They are still there.
We still haven't searched for fossils on Mars, not counting the
ALH84001. When machines and people have logged hundred of hours of
digging in various likely places for fossil records, we'll know if
there ever was more complex life on Mars besides single cell organisms.
Saying "I don't think so" or "I think it likely" won't affect unfolding
events, just like any other form of wishful thinking.
There is/was single cell life on Mars or there isn't, we still don't
know but we'll find out.
Same with multicellular life
Same with more complexe life.

In article , Mark
K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
s.com...

Bzzt. Sorry, the more sensible response is: the conditions for complex are
exceedingly rare in the universe.

And you've survey how many star systems?

I think in his case not even one.

He forgets that there are approximately 100 billion stars in the Milky
Way alone and the Milky Way is one of perhaps 100 billion to 200
billion galaxies.

Emma


--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
Greywolf wrote:

Forget Mars.

Right, you want me to forget what I can plainly see. Well, I can kinda see
it, it's pretty dim right now. Let me see. Yup, there it is.

That's so ... scientific!

Forget you.

plonk

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Well, well. Short fuse. I'm honored.

Greywolf