Terraforming Mars

[modest]

"an actual theory" - is linguistically an oxymoron -.

 

An actual scientific theory is not in any way an oxymoron.

 

Life emerging from the terrestrial environment is an actual theory because we have real models to study. Panspermia and exogenesis are not theoretical models because their is nothing of any real substance to study.

 

Is there any evidence of either?

 

-modest

[Thunderbird]

"The same applies to UFO's as extraterrestrials, if they are, are they are not, is not a real scientific debate, because their is nothing that can be called real information to study."

 

Though an interesting concept, I pay no attention to UFO stories. Neither do I state that because there is no hard evidence to support, that constitutes hard evidence that they do not exist.

 

"an actual theory" - is linguistically an oxymoron -

1 - "For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact"."

2 - "In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis."

 

Hence, both panspermia and exogenesis are indeed theories.

 

This is a science forum so the distinction between the common usage of the word theory and the scientific usage is of upmost importance.

 

A scientific usage is a workable model that can be used as a tool for organizing more information. Let me put in in the most practical terms . I can study biology as having terrestrial origins and go beyond current chemical based models and make an attempt to construct a Quantum Mechanical model. This may be going out on a limb, however I would still have information to use as building materials. You need something to work with.

[Thunderbird]

An actual scientific theory is not in any way an oxymoron.

 

 

 

Is there any evidence of either?

 

-modest

 

We have plenty of evidence of life as a terrestrial phenomenon , as part and parcel of the planet. The how life formed is the debate. Origins of life is about working with what we have available, and what we have is a vast amount of life to study on the earth and a vast record contained within the earth.

[Moontanman]

"care to explain why you think virus' fall from the sky pre-evolved to infect complex Earth life?"

 

 

The theory postulated concerning the 1918 flu pandemic was that it drifted down from the upper strata and was then harbored by birds in some way. They ask the question – how could a new strain of microbe infect the whole world at once without a transmission vehicle? Scattered and remote tribes of Eskimos who were not only cut off from the rest of the world, but also each other, caught the same strain of virus at the same time the rest of the world did.

 

First of all I have no problem with the theory of panspermia, it would seem to be unlikely but not impossible, but contrary to popular belief, virus's are not primitive organisms, they might appear to be simple but they have evolved over billions of years along with their hosts, virus's are not separate and apart from the ecosystem they live in, they are an intimate part of Earth life, and not an outside agency. As for how the virus could have spread in 1918 if indeed birds spread it then you have answered your own question, humans do become infected with bird virus' due to the fact the humans have lived in close association with various bird for thousands of years. When animals live in close proximity they often exchange various infectious agents. If bird carried the virus then Eskimos could well contracted the virus from birds. no extraterrestrial source of a pre evolved virus to infect humans is needed or even possible.

 

 

Evolution? Fruit flies, via some genetic tinkering, evolved right before the eyes of a single researcher. Fruit flies are far more complex than viruses. Are not viruses just genetic strands wrapped in protein capsids? Life here is based on the five most common elements in the entire universe.

 

I think the key here is via some genetic tinkering. As I said a virus may look simple but it has evolved along side it's hosts for a very long time. for a virus to form independent of multicellular life and then for it to be able to infect a an organism it has nothing in common with is a fantasy, not science or even a hypothesis much less a theory.

[CraigD]

… care to explain why you think virus' fall from the sky preevolved to infect complex Earth life?

This question, I think, is a key one on the subject of the possibility of extraterrestrial disease-causing organisms.

 

Discussions at hypography and various sources cited encyclopedia articles such as wikipedia article “Panspermia” show reasonable support for the hypothesis that many known terrestrial organisms could survive extended periods of travel through space to Earth’s surface.

 

However, medical science shows that organisms that can cause disease in organisms with which they have had no previous contact are rare to non-existent. Pathogens generally must evolve to be suitable to infect particular species or closely related families of species. So while an extraterrestrial organism might physically survive a trip through space to Earth, it seems unlikely that it would cause disease.

 

I can think of two possibly explanations that circumvent this objection:

• Parallel evolution. Perhaps all life, regardless of where they evolves, is similar enough to interact pathogenically.
   
  This seems a weak argument, as on Earth pathogens of one species commonly coming into harmless contact with others species is the norm. That organisms evolved elsewhere should be dramatically more versatile appears to have no explanation or supporting empirical evidence.
  
• Organisms arriving on Earth from space originated on Earth. There’s strong evidence that ejections of material from Earth into space was common in Earth’s early history (ie: during the Hadean eon Earth’s first 0.8 billion years of history following its accretion about 4.6 billion years ago), so much material falling from space to Earth may have originated on Earth. It’s possible material from Earth fell to Mars, then was later ejected to return to Earth.
   
  The main problem with this explanation is that biological theory has the earliest life on Earth appearing not before about 3.5 BYA, long after theories of planet formation have material no longer being ejected from Earth. For it to be viable, its necessary to assume that at least some great impact and ejection events occurred billions of years after they ceased being commonplace.
  

Note that, as they don’t propose that the origin of life on earth is from space, these scenarios aren’t truly “pansperia”, but rather that Earth’s ecosphere is much larger and more tenuous than conventionally imagined.

 

As for whether any such theory is actually correct, I don’t think there’s enough evidence or modeling to conclude yes or no with much confidence. Like so many planetary astronomy and ancient biology questions, this one seems to have many reasonable but uncertain answers.

 

As it relates to the colonization of Mars, these idea suggest that terrestrial life may have actually colonized Mars billions of years ago, without any intelligence being involved. As continued exploration of Mars samples increasing amounts of data in increasing detail, it should be possible to confirm or rule out many such theoretical scenarios.

[dcmike]

"an actual theory"

 

My punctuation is the key actual and theory being used together.

 

Is there any evidence of either?

 

There is certainly evidence that there is life here - we are speaking to one another.

 

There is solid logic that out of billions of other possibilities that there must be at least pond scum somewhere else. That we have none in our hands for exibit A does not constitute evidence for absolute proof of non-existence.

 

Even scientifically a theory is still a theory. History has proven that even what we have proven with all available technology can turn out to be a (wrong) theory when we observe again with wiser or more technologically advanced eyes. Take for example new advances in telescopy that employ other wavebands of of light. A completely different picture emerges and shows us we were wrong.

 

I couldn't care less where microbes came from at this point - a scientific debate must have a base in logic. If you can't prove something is not then the dialog is logically "I don't subscribe to that theory" - not "no way that's bullshit!!!"

 

It is not whether anyone here doubts this theory or that. It is when someone states unequivically that what they believe is undeniable fact that I debate them. And I am not even debating the issue but rather the egotism of one man's opinion - even if trends indicate it is likely. It is not likely that organisms can withstand boiling - but some do. It is not likely that a platypus should even exist - but they do.

 

I saw Neil DeGrasse Tyson live and he is far more humble about absolutes than some here.

 

Enlightnment is always preceeded by humility. Humility and open mindedness open the eyes to new possibilities and dogma is the enemy of science.

[dcmike]

Snippets from Moontanman

 

First of all I have no problem with the theory of panspermia, it would seem to be unlikely but not impossible,

 

My whole point and nothing more

 

but contrary to popular belief, virus's are not primitive organisms, they might appear to be simple but they have evolved over billions of years along with their hosts, virus's are not separate and apart from the ecosystem

 

What could be more simple than a strand of RNA or DNA wrapped in protein? It would seem logical that viruses and bacteria appeared before mammals - who'd they live in untill we got here ;-}

 

1918 if indeed birds spread it then you have answered your own question, humans do become infected with bird virus' due to the fact the humans have lived in close association with various bird for thousands of years. When animals live in close proximity they often exchange various infectious agents.

 

What birds are common to the Arctic and Spain? And Eskimos, to my knowledge do not live in proximity to any species of bird. The theory was the birds got the 'drift down', took a flyin' sh** and spread it in the wind. But whatever, it's not my theory -it's just one that is being taken seriously by some.

 

Again, the issue I am debating here is not the absoluteness of any of these theories but the absoluteness of absoluteness itself!

[modest]

Life emerging from the terrestrial environment is an actual theory because we have real models to study. Panspermia and exogenesis are not theoretical models because their is nothing of any real substance to study.

Is there any evidence of either?

 

We have plenty of evidence of life as a terrestrial phenomenon , as part and parcel of the planet. The how life formed is the debate. Origins of life is about working with what we have available, and what we have is a vast amount of life to study on the earth and a vast record contained within the earth.

 

There is certainly evidence that there is life here - we are speaking to one another.

 

My question was not: “is there life on earth”. As Tbird says, “how life formed is the debate.” - as was my question. As far as I know there is no evidence of either panspermia or terrestrial abiogenesis. I personally lean toward our terrestrial origins much as Pyrotex aptly summarizes here. However, I know of no evidence directly linked to that description nor of any linked to panspermia.

 

-modest

[dcmike]

Originally Posted by dcmike

There is certainly evidence that there is life here - we are speaking to one another.

 

That was in context to a statement about knowing there is life here (you can hold a gerbil in your hand and show it to me) VS. a point of logic that states that lack of proof for something constitutes tangible proof against it.

 

lack of proof is not usable in an argument outside of court.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by dcmike

There is certainly evidence that there is life here - we are speaking to one another.

 

That was in context to a statement about knowing there is life here (you can hold a gerbil in your hand and show it to me) VS. a point of logic that states that lack of proof for something constitutes tangible proof against it.

 

lack of proof is not usable in an argument outside of court.

 

You do need to have some evidentiary foundation to make a case in a court of law or in the realm of science. That was my point. You can only make a case with evidence. My point was not that because life is here on earth so epso facto that makes exogenesis false. Its simply what we have to work with. my contention is when we want to study origins of life.., we only have terrestrial life to study. When, and if there comes a time that we have extraterrestrial life to study then a theory may emerge about origins based on new information. That day has not yet come.

[dcmike]

Thunderbird

 

Yes, I agree - you do need substantial proof to get an idea accepted as fact, and twenty years up the road even that might get canned.

 

I think some are just starting to get my point. It's not that you do not need proof to establish something as fact, but lack of tangible evidence (on it's own) does not conclusevly prove a case against something. Contrary to the axiom of "not voting is a vote for the opponent" - lack of evidense does not constitute evidence against.

 

The scientific approach is to not "subscribe" to that which you are doubtful of, rather than to personally guarantee, upon your word, it does not exist.

[dcmike]

From Modest

"Is there any evidence of either?"

 

I agree 100% - where is the evidence that life even germinated here. They are all theories. Twenty years ago there would be no debate. But that was then and this is now.

[Moontanman]

My question was not: “is there life on earth”. As Tbird says, “how life formed is the debate.” - as was my question. As far as I know there is no evidence of either panspermia or terrestrial abiogenesis. I personally lean toward our terrestrial origins much as Pyrotex aptly summarizes here. However, I know of no evidence directly linked to that description nor of any linked to panspermia.

 

-modest

 

Modest, no evidence of the origin of life on Earth? Are we in different universes? I've read so many books and papers pertaining to abiogenesis in the distant past of the Earth I wouldn't even know where to start. Proof? Not yet, evidence? Yes, totally over whelming, getting absolute proof is probably impossible unless some builds a time machine but I'm not holding my breath for that. Absolute indisputable proof of anything is rather rare but lack of absolute proof of what gravity is doesn't make me think I can jump off a building and live.

[dcmike]

Modest, no evidence of the origin of life on Earth? Are we in different universes? I've read so many books and papers pertaining to abiogenesis in the distant past of the Earth I wouldn't even know where to start. Proof? Not yet, evidence? Yes, totally over whelming, getting absolute proof is probably impossible unless some builds a time machine but I'm not holding my breath for that. Absolute indisputable proof of anything is rather rare but lack of absolute proof of what gravity is doesn't make me think I can jump off a building and live.

 

Gravity is provable and measurable with instruments, whether you drop an apple off a building or drop your ex-wife, it functions consistently. But however logical life beginning here with pertinacious goop and a fraction of a lightning bolt meeting fortuitously at a magic moment it is still unproven. No one was there when it happened.

 

It is also known that much of our water came from ceaseless cometary bombardment. Add to that - microbes can be in suspended animation for millions of years and survive entry into the Earth's atmosphere and the ensuing impact.

 

Add to that, Mars:

• Had liquid water at one time
  
• Is believed by some to maybe have been favorable to life prior to this planet
  
• Had been battered so badly that pieces of it have been found here
  

 

For all we know the origin of life here could be an amalgam of two or more sources - or you may be right. If we can find an eye witness I will accede and agree unequivocally.

 

It is human nature, even in science, to defend what you have invested in. However, there is a refreshing new attitude in the theoretical sciences, like astrophysics and quantum mechanics (even archeology!) of amazement and wonder that overwhelms their desire to always be right. Science is supposed to be about the quest for answers - religion already controls the market for their manufacture.

 

I can tell you for myself - I can see merit in all but I see no clear winner at the finish line nor do I profess to have the answer myself.

[Moontanman]

Snippets from Moontanman

 

First of all I have no problem with the theory of panspermia, it would seem to be unlikely but not impossible,

 

My whole point and nothing more

 

Then you shouldn't have included the idea that virus' come to earth, Life is one thing infective virus' are another ball of wax.

 

 

but contrary to popular belief, virus's are not primitive organisms, they might appear to be simple but they have evolved over billions of years along with their hosts, virus's are not separate and apart from the ecosystem

 

What could be more simple than a strand of RNA or DNA wrapped in protein? It would seem logical that viruses and bacteria appeared before mammals - who'd they live in untill we got here ;-}

 

Simple does not mean primitive, do you really think virus' have only been around since mammals came to be? Bacteria live independent of complex animals, virus' have been a part of our environment since the beginning, they lived on , in and in symbioses with bacteria since the beginning and maybe ever before as simple strands of RNA, DNA virus are descendants of DNA life forms, RNA virus' are possibly descendants of an RNA world and RNA life forms. Virus' are a natural part of our world, why would you want to invoke an extraterrestrial origin?

 

1918 if indeed birds spread it then you have answered your own question, humans do become infected with bird virus' due to the fact the humans have lived in close association with various bird for thousands of years. When animals live in close proximity they often exchange various infectious agents.

 

What birds are common to the Arctic and Spain? And Eskimos, to my knowledge do not live in proximity to any species of bird. The theory was the birds got the 'drift down', took a flyin' sh** and spread it in the wind. But whatever, it's not my theory -it's just one that is being taken seriously by some.

 

I don't know, you are the one who made the odd claim not me.

 

 

Again, the issue I am debating here is not the absoluteness of any of these theories but the absoluteness of absoluteness itself!

 

No one has suggested the absoluteness of any of these things but there is evidence for them and in some cases it is more over whelming than the evidence of the cause of gravity.

[dcmike]

I am not the author of any of these theories. I merely threw them in the mix for the sake of interesting debate, and you can't deny the response was lively at the very least. Is this about debate or is it the reciting of ancient verse? Today ancient can be five years.

 

There are many theories "out there" and many have some merit and at the same time areas of discrepancy. Even the hallowed Big Bang theory has holes (some black!) and there are astute theorists nipping at the heels of the likes of Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein. However the concept of "can't happen" is getting as risky as the arena of wild possibilities used to be.

 

Theories that shock the scientific community are popping up in droves, and the very possibility that somehow they could possibly happen in a quirk merits their right to exist. The interesting part is we live in a quirky universe - very quirky. It was indelibly engraved in stone tablets that nothing can go faster than the speed of light - but a German professor proved that wrong by sending and then retreiving data (intact) at nearly five times the speed of light. That opens up the possibility of some sort of time travel - even if only retrieval of information.

 

In science today, nothing is "sacred".

 

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”...Albert Einstein

 

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand..”...Albert Einstein”

[modest]

No one has suggested the absoluteness of any of these things but there is evidence for them and in some cases it is more over whelming than the evidence of the cause of gravity.

 

What evidence do you have in mind?

 

-modest