Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Water on March!?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Water on March!?

    I just read a norwegian online newspaper, and they claimed that the NASA scientists may have found water on March. Will this give us any proves that March once had living organisms? Or maybe they'll even find living organisms!?

    NASA keep a press conferance today at 8:00 pm (GMT+1). Goddamn, this is exciting!!

  • #2
    hmm, either it was a gross mispelling by NASA, or you mean to say MARS. Either way, thats cool. 8)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Hannu
      hmm, either it was a gross mispelling by NASA, or you mean to say MARS. Either way, thats cool. 8)
      Mars=March in many languages, this is just a case of translating when it didn't need to be translated.
      Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia, n. See also Irony.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Salvage
        Mars=March in many languages,
        Oh, this i did not know, sorry for the confusion.

        Comment


        • #5
          It sure haven't been raining here this month....

          Comment


          • #6
            In my opinion somebody had lived there... dunno who but I think so! Then something happend and they did or something like that...
            Also I think we were created from a higher creature maybe god or a very intelligent thoroughbred... <---is that word right? My reason for that is because I think human body is so complex that not even the natur could have created it. (Sounds maybe stupid )
            What do you guys think about that?

            "Blockheads never learn, Clever learn by his own mistakes, Intelligents learn by mistakes of others."

            Comment


            • #7
              I think it is... incorrect, to put it tactfully. The human body is no more complex than the bodies of many other mammals. Our cognitive abilities are far in advance of any other species on this planet, but that does not constitute proof that we are not a part of nature. It's more likely that humanity outdid itself in terms of development and adaptation at the onset of the last ice age, and that the resultant technology, language, and (later) surplus cognitive ability catapulted us way beyond the gamut of most animals afterward, and into most of the ecosystems on this planet.

              (link to BBC story)

              Comment


              • #8
                Ack! they've been saying that for 10 years now (using simple techniques such as studying river formations on earth.

                That they've actually convinced people, that's cool! 8)
                "Just off the border of your waking mind there lies another time, where darkness and light are one. As you tread the halls of sanity, you feel so glad to be unable to go beyond. I have a message from another time."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Of course there is water on March, how do you think Alf survived before migrating to Earth?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by impulse
                    Of course there is water on March, how do you think Alf survived before migrating to Earth?
                    Hes from Melmac. D'uh.
                    Deftones

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      GIMMIE SINGLE-CELL BACTERIA, DARNIT! I want REAL news!
                      "Garlisk's got a lov-el-y bunch of coconuts."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There is evidence that suggests that the human species originate from a group of maybe 100 individuals - we have relatively little genetic diversity. In a way, the one thing that allowed up to survive as a species was the fact we were able to evolve culturally and technologically, rather than just genetically like most species. Due to our social and intellectual abilities we could adapt to a new situation within a single generation, and with minimal loss of life.

                        I have studied evolution in fair amount of detail and have found no problem with the system whenever emphasis is put on the correct parts of the system (mutation has relatively little promience in evolution compared to the crossover of chromosomes in sufficiently complex organisims, for instance). You CAN argue against evolution having occured in our world based on lack of evidence, but the same can be said for any given system used to explain our existance - how can you find evidence on something that occurs over millions of year, 99.9% of which occured before humans even existed? Considering that we do have fossil records which fit the theory of evolution, we have observed evolution in bacteria in the lab and certain moths in the london area, and know the process itself works (the genetic algorithm is a programming method that uses the exact rules found in nature to evolve solutions to a problem) there is a lot of supporting evidence. And seriously, if all sexually reproducing organisms included the chromosome cross-over stage in their reproductive process, the only purpose of which is to aid evolution, I doubt it is just there by chance.

                        The other main argument I've heard against evolution is the complexity of evolving a complex organ which is useless except when fully evolved, such as wings or an eye. But often these features can be broken up into benefit giving stages, such as long arms->gliding wings->reduction of mass->flight. And often these stages can be round about, and thus hard to work out.

                        As you can see, I'm slightly obsessed on this subject though, so perhaps I have some bias? Read around a bit and judge for yourself (I can recommend reading 'Artificial Life' by Steven Levy, as it has some great information).
                        Immortius' Forge

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Buho
                          GIMMIE SINGLE-CELL BACTERIA, DARNIT! I want REAL news!
                          there are currently 4 rocks on display at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington containing fossilized bacteria.

                          and a bunch instorage.
                          "Just off the border of your waking mind there lies another time, where darkness and light are one. As you tread the halls of sanity, you feel so glad to be unable to go beyond. I have a message from another time."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Sorry to disapoint you mode but I believe that the European Space Agency (or whatever is called) not only made that statement in January but they also presented some evidence from their probe.
                            So on this one NASA got beaten by the ESA and by Radamanthus.

                            But still no martians... I wonder what's taking so long
                            Feel the power of the

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Immort, I think we could have some very nice conversation concerning your post. I too, have studied genetics extently and evolution, yet some of the things you pointed out I have never thought of, yet they make so much sense when I think about it, and they also fill some holes in theories I have had or read about.
                              Genius is a blink before a moment of insanity.
                              "Dream is Destiny"
                              Waking Life

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X