Lake found on Mars

[number51]

If there's any sort of life in that water just imagine what could be under that ice on Europa...science is so cool.

 

[AussieBear]

mars aint real.. not like THEY be describing anyway. the fucks cant even leave the firmament

 

[AussieBear]

If there's any sort of life in that water just imagine what could be under that ice on Europa...science is so cool.

just imagine whats in the depths of our be oceans.. majority of that still not understood and unexplored.. n we talking fake mars.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

If we find life on Mars it still doesn't tell the big picture. If creation is based on a panspermia event then it is possible that event only happened in our neck of the woods on some unknowable scale. If life can pop up purely based on the events of planet formation, then life could be ridiculously abundant.

But,considering the vastness of the universe and,hell, our own galaxy, I would be very surprised if panspermia events only occurred where we are. There are likely thousands if not millions of solar systems that are quite similar to ours.

But, at the same time, understanding the mechanisms involved with how life got to Earth(and Mars in the scenario) is important.

If we find life should be abundant and can realistically calculate the odds of intelligent life.......then you can fear the great filter.....

the only hope beyond the great filter on that is that the entire galactic community have all chosen to ignore us on purpose and have the technology to keep us from seeing them.....

If life can exist on multiple planets within the same solar system, where one would probably not seem habitable if we were viewing it from a longer distance(say, from outside our solar system), that seems to suggest that life may be able to take root more easily than we thought.

If that is true, even if,say, the development of higher order thinking once life has developed on a planet is a billion to one odds, you will still get countless intelligent species on countless planets. We still don't know how rare that would be, necessarily, but it means that,even if it is rare, it's more likely to occur based on the scale of the observable universe than we thought before.

There's obviously still a lot of question marks in terms of how life can develop on other planets, and how we can find them. But life on Mars, even if it's just extremophiles would provide some interesting insight.

 

[modo]

No I don't. In alegbra, If I know X (e.g. all the other components in the equation such as size of universe, age,) and I know the solution ie I want Z to be 0 then I can solve for Y.

In the article they are estimating all the other variables they can ie X and they know that Z is going to be 0 so they are solving for Y. Y in this case is the number 1 over 10 to the 22 power that civilized life has to be under in order to return 0 for Z.

Like this is basic math. They know other variables and they know the answer they want ie Z = 0 so they can calculate what Y has to be. That doesn't mean Y is actually 1 over 10 the 22 power. They are not actually calculating the true probability of Y. They are simply saying that as long as Y is not less than 1 over 10 to the power of 22 then life exists.

Get it yet? If not, ask you kid's algebra teacher as I honestly don't understand why this is hard to grasp unless you didn't actually read the article. I don't know what the probability of abiogenesis is. And nor do I need to because I am solving for that variable. All I know is it has to be less than 1 over 10 to the power of 22. I have no idea if it is or not. I just know if that is what it has to be then that is a very tiny fucking number.

You believe you know enough to draw an accurate conclusion on the probability of life. You and I are in disagreement on how much abiogensis comes into play and how much it inherently means to what the chances of life are in the Universe and any type of accurate calculation of probability.

Minus your condescending posts, thanks for the talk....

 

[modo]

But,considering the vastness of the universe and,hell, our own galaxy, I would be very surprised if panspermia events only occurred where we are. There are likely thousands if not millions of solar systems that are quite similar to ours.

But, at the same time, understanding the mechanisms involved with how life got to Earth(and Mars in the scenario) is important.



If life can exist on multiple planets within the same solar system, where one would probably not seem habitable if we were viewing it from a longer distance(say, from outside our solar system), that seems to suggest that life may be able to take root more easily than we thought.

If that is true, even if,say, the development of higher order thinking once life has developed on a planet is a billion to one odds, you will still get countless intelligent species on countless planets. We still don't know how rare that would be, necessarily, but it means that,even if it is rare, it's more likely to occur based on the scale of the observable universe than we thought before.

There's obviously still a lot of question marks in terms of how life can develop on other planets, and how we can find them. But life on Mars, even if it's just extremophiles would provide some interesting insight.

Let's say we found molecule X that we finally found out caused abiogenesis. We would have to have some knowledge of its existence across the Universe or at least in our galaxy, which would be more realistic. At that point we could start to make some realistically accurate calculations on how much life there is in the Galaxy. At least life as we have come to understand it. We could calculate saturation of element X and combine it with our knowledge of what we have observed scientifically and then make some good estimates. We still would have the issue of knowing how many planets would then allow life to evolve into intelligent life. Some specific things had to occur here, at least as we understand it. Other unknown events could unfold on other planets for life to evolve into intelligence.

Even some of things may or may not give us an accurate calculation of intelligent life.

 

[remydat]

You believe you know enough to draw an accurate conclusion on the probability of life. You and I are in disagreement on how much abiogensis comes into play and how much it inherently means to what the chances of life are in the Universe and any type of accurate calculation of probability.

Minus your condescending posts, thanks for the talk....

Again Y is not an accurate conclusion on the probability of life. It is simply what the probability of life has to be less than to return 0 for Z. The scientist is not claiming that the probability of life is 1 over 10 to the power of 22. The scientist is saying if the probability of life is less than that number then we are the first advanced civilization in the universe.

This is not condescension. This is extreme frustration over you continually misrepresenting the argument and me thinking you are smart enough to understand the distinction. So I am left to conclude that you are pretending you don't get it because you failed to actually read the article and didn't realize it was not trying to accurately determine the probability of life.

No one in the article claims to know the actual probability of life. They claim to have calculated how small that probability of life has to be in order for us to be alone in the universe. That is a huge difference which again I am not sure why you don't grasp.

X / Y > Z

10 / Y > 10

If I ask you what Y has to be in order for Z to be greater than 10 then there are an infinite number of answers. I don't know what Y is. All I know is that Y has to be less than 1 because if it is 1 or higher then the answer will be 10 or less.

This is what they did. They have no fucking clue what the probability of life is. All they did was calculate a limit to what Y could be in order to solve the equation.

So what is confusing about this? I don't need to know anything about abiogenesis to solve for the above equation because again I am not trying to calculate the actual probability. All I am trying to tell you is what Y cannot be. It can't be 1 or more than 1.

 

[modo]

Again Y is not an accurate conclusion on the probability of life. It is simply what the probability of life has to be less than to return 0 for Z. The scientist is not claiming that the probability of life is 1 over 10 to the power of 22. The scientist is saying if the probability of life is less than that number then we are the first advanced civilization in the universe.

This is not condescension. This is extreme frustration over you continually misrepresenting the argument and me thinking you are smart enough to understand the distinction. So I am left to conclude that you are pretending you don't get it because you failed to actually read the article and didn't realize it was not trying to accurately determine the probability of life.

No one in the article claims to know the actual probability of life. They claim to have calculated how small that probability of life has to be in order for us to be alone in the universe. That is a huge difference which again I am not sure why you don't grasp.

X / Y > Z

10 / Y > 10

If I ask you what Y has to be in order for Z to be greater than 10 then there are an infinite number of answers. I don't know what Y is. All I know is that Y has to be less than 1 because if it is 1 or higher then the answer will be 10 or less.

This is what they did. They have no fucking clue what the probability of life is. All they did was calculate a limit to what Y could be in order to solve the equation.

So what is confusing about this? I don't need to know anything about abiogenesis to solve for the above equation because again I am not trying to calculate the actual probability. All I am trying to tell you is what Y cannot be. It can't be 1 or more than 1.

Remy we are just repeating...we are not going to find common ground.

Without knowledge of the likelihood of non-Earth abiogenesis or abiogenesis in general, all these numbers on the probably of life or lack there of are coming straight out of humans asses and are meaningless.

 

[remydat]

Remy we are just repeating...we are not going to find common ground.

Without knowledge of the likelihood of non-Earth abiogenesis or abiogenesis in general, all these numbers on the probably of life or lack there of are coming straight out of humans asses and are meaningless.

And this again is a fundamentally ignorant statement. You don't know enough once again to claim it is meaningless and you don't need to know the probability of something when all you are trying to do is determine a lower limit.

But you are right. We are repeating ourselves. I will just concede you apparently don't understand math.

 

[Houston]

Imagine that all the physical characteristics we know of: eyes, ears, tails, skin, teeth, feet, reproductive organs, digestive systems, hair, hearts, antennas, wings, scales, tongues, etc etc...are completely unique to earthlings. And aren't found anywhere else because no other planet has our DNA.

Now try imagining what an alien species would look like.

 

[remydat]

I can imagine beings that aren't actually physical at all at least not as we think of it. We are simply energy configured in a certain way and there are any number of configurations that don't require bodies as we imagine them. The only question is whether those configurations can give rise to what we call life.

Why can't their be beings composed primarily of light for example. Plus when you factor in quantum physics giving rise to the possibility of parallel universes then there are a near infinite number of possible universes with potentially different laws of physics that can give rise to life completely different from ours. The possibilities are truly endless.

Hell we probably don't even know enough to truly say our concept of life is even accurate. For all we know stars are alive but we simply don't possess the knowledge and understanding to communicate. After all one could argue they are born and grow and die just like a living organism.

Of course, these are just wild ramblings but just trying to go along with your premise of imagine such things. Well that and I read a **** ton of comics where a lot of these things have been contemplated.

 

[ytsejam]

Who's up for a fishing trip?

 

[nc0gnet0]

I think that a lot of people are missing the fundamental point here. If life is found on Mars, then it is proven that life is not unique to our planet, which then increases the probability that it also exists in other solar systems, galaxies, etc etc, by a great magnitude, not to mention the biblical implications. One doesn't need to know the probability or rate of occurance to concede that point.

 

[Tater]

brine shrimp on mars......

 

[brett05]

I think that a lot of people are missing the fundamental point here. If life is found on Mars, then it is proven that life is not unique to our planet, which then increases the probability that it also exists in other solar systems, galaxies, etc etc, by a great magnitude, not to mention the biblical implications. One doesn't need to know the probability or rate of occurance to concede that point.

What biblical implications would there be?

 

[Ares]

What biblical implications would there be?

Would prove Jesus is from Mars... duh.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

What biblical implications would there be?

Seriously?

 

[brett05]

Seriously?

Seriously

 

[modo]

I think that a lot of people are missing the fundamental point here. If life is found on Mars, then it is proven that life is not unique to our planet, which then increases the probability that it also exists in other solar systems, galaxies, etc etc, by a great magnitude, not to mention the biblical implications. One doesn't need to know the probability or rate of occurance to concede that point.

I think we can all agree that if life is found on Mars it proves it isn't unique to Earth....none of us were debating that.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Seriously

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but does the Bible speak of God putting life on other planets? To find life on another planet assumes that God put that life there as well, no? So which did he do first? Which one does he favor? Was Mars the original Earth, and then he flooded that planet - thereby recreating the world here on Earth 2?

I mean, there's a whole bunch of good (and silly, see above) questions that can be asked to make one question what is in the Bible.