Looking for Building Blocks
by BradfordThe search for life beyond earth continues. NASA Now Looking for Life's Building Blocks on Mars has this to say:
Phoenix scientists announced yesterday that the mission finally confirmed the presence of subsurface water ice in the north polar regions of Mars — first detected by NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter in 2002 — about two months after touching down on the Martian surface on May 25.
The lander is now analyzing the ice to see if it was ever a liquid and if it contains organic materials, the building blocks of life.
Among the indicators of possible life water is basic. Yet water alone may not suffice even with hospitable atmospheric conditions and temperatures. Time will tell. More from the linked article:
The evidence available to scientists now suggests that Mars could have harbored life, it's just a matter of finding a spot that preserves the signs of it, he added. And Phoenix's landing site, or even MSL's, may not be the ideal spot to go and look for those signs, whether by sending another rover or staging a mission to return a sample to Earth.
There are plenty of other environments on Mars where Jakosky would like to look for signs of life. While he can't point to a particular spot, there is evidence that Mars once had features that could have supported life, including ancient lake beds, ancient highlands where evidence suggests that water existed for long periods of time, and hot springs — "places like Yellowstone," as Jakosky describes them.
Some scientists, such as Seelos, doubt that clear evidence of Martian life itself will ever be found because any life would have likely been microbial, which is not easily preserved as fossils. But Jakosky sees this as an "unnecessarily pessimistic" view, because ancient microbes have been preserved in some places on Earth.
Conditions vary greatly throughout the universe but if life arose on earth because the environment favored chemical reactions that lead to cells, then we have an expectation that similar environments likewise give rise to those results.
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Bradford:
There is geological evidence that Mars did once sport running water. Mars is also known to harbor vulcanism – Olympus Mons is the biggest volcano in the solar system – and that means hot springs were probably widespread. And the atmosphere would have been thicker and able to sustain a water cycle (clouds, rain). If there was life, it isn't outlandish to suspect it may have developed at least to algae mats and hot mud 'primordial soup'. An interdependent ecosystem isn't unlikely if there was life at all.
There is also the broader possibility that Mars once orbited closer to the sun (yeah, echoes of Velikovsky). It was bombarded more often than Earth back in the day, since it doesn't have a harmungous, closely-orbiting moon to absorb much of the debris, thus no doubt had all the space-borne hydrocarbons and aa's postulated to have accumulated on Earth. Life may well have developed all the way to close pre-Cambrian levels, so there should be fossils. If there was life.
They're looking, of course, for life "as we know it." That means cellular, with DNA and proteins. Given straight OOL assumptions, life needn't be "as we know it" anywhere outside of Earth.
I've seen some speculation here and there that the reason the government wants to control the release of information about life elsewhere not so much because of antiquated Brookings Institution fears based on a 'War of the Worlds' panic, but because of the expected negative reaction of religious fundamentalists (i.e., Creationists). Which I think is total bunk, since there just aren't that many of 'em, and those pay scant attention to scientific news.
A question of any fundamentalists/Creationists here: how would the discovery that life isn't completely unique to planet Earth affect you or your views?
Comment by Joy — August 2, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Joy:
I don't think you are going to get many takers on this. The word fundamentalist has acquired a very negative connotation and fewer are those who answer to the word. Linguistic evolution is fascinating- at least AFAIC.
Since my religious views are known to those posting regularly at TT I'll give you my own view. My views as to the identity of God and those issues of primary concern to God would be unaffected. God, as revealed through the New Testament, is focused on our moral behavior and the means by which redemption, for our failure to live up to divine standards, is accomplished. The discovery of fossil evidence for life on Mars would not impact this.
However, fossil evidence would have obvious scientific significance. Actual evidence for life on other planets would replace speculation. If actual life forms were located elsewhere in the galaxy, the nature of such life could influence theories as to how life came about on earth.
I'll pose a counter hypothetical addressed to atheists. If no life existed beyond planet earth would this affect your views about life's origin? Would it influence your metaphysical views?
Comment by Bradford — August 2, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I expect science to some day generate a reasonable theory of abiogenesis, but if life is an astronomically uncommon thing then that might be impossible or unreasonable to expect. Being alone simply means there is less data to collect and less chance we will learn the origin of life. Being alone in the universe wouldn't alter my views towards religion and other mythology though. I reject religion because of a lack of utility not because I believe in little green men.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 2, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I accurately noted in a previous comment that the primary focus of Judeo-Christianity is behavioral norms. Sure, God is central to the determination of what they are but moral standards are hardly without utility.
Comment by Bradford — August 2, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Bradford:
No offense meant, Bradford. I probably should have used "literalist," but that's pretty much synonymous with "Creationist," so maybe I shouldn't have used any other designator. I just wanted a view from the right side of the spectrum (if Catholic and Protestant 'orthodoxy' are mid-to-left).
Fair enough. So you'd be willing to consider the origin mythologies in Genesis to be what those whose origin mythologies they *are* believe them to be. Which means you're not a "literalist" or a "Creationist" per Genesis. I'm wondering how this would affect those who ARE literalists, in that they can't just suddenly decide that the earth-centricity of the saga applies generally to all earth-like planets in the universe, I wouldn't think. Still, they managed to survive dinosaurs, so I suppose they might consider alien life to be just another Satanic lie.
Though if we did establish the existence of life on other planets – particularly intelligent, humanoid life – I'd expect Genesis literalism to finally die a well-deserved death of factual absurdity. The telic vs. atelic/random debates can go on forever. But the whole 6-day Adam's rib thing would probably go back to being ancient origin mythology, as it (in truth) always was.
A number of notable and anonymous hard core evolutionists have already made the leap to panspermia, directed or not. I doubt it would be too difficult to drag the rest of 'em along if the evidence were clear. They might hang on to the insistence that life itself originated in this solar system, but that would be a pretty weak position. I imagine they'd leave it up to astrophysics to determine at what point in the evolution of the entire universe the necessary elements of life were present, and even then they'd have to consider whether or not constructs of something other than carbon might work as well. It might put the origin of life so far back that carbon-based live here in our solar system is three or four manifest star-generations down the line from actual OOL.
IOW, OOL would become a non-issue in biological science because it's no longer pertinent to the dynamics of life itself (and occurred long before our star was born). Something we could only hope to fathom "someday," if someone from an older chemistry were to inform us. Heck, if ever we were to meet such an ancient, light-matter life form, it's likely we'd be told the entirety of our physics is full of you-know-what too (getting here from even Andromeda might involve timespace manipulations we never dreamed of). We might be dumber than modern scientists would ever care to admit. Babes in the woods, just starting to explore our little playpen.
I don't know if atheists' metaphysical views would change (people are stubborn). But if some ancient, light-matter intelligent life form were ever to visit and rock their little world, I'd sure want to know what THEY believe and/or know about origins! Wouldn't it be a gas if they had a basic religious creation mythology that looked a lot like some of ours?
Comment by Joy — August 2, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Is it opposite day or something?
Bradford puts up a science thread and Joy talks about religion.
Actually I too would be curious about the philosophy/religion of an ancient alien race.
Of course Science Fiction authors have explored this.
If you don't mind a rerun. Here is something I had previously posted about Larry Niven's short story titled The Subject is Closed…
My favorite Science Fiction author is Niven. I think he creates the most interesting aliens. If you are not familiar with Niven, he has a backdrop that he uses for a lot of his short stories, The Draco Tavern. This tavern is where different aliens can meet and interact. It is a dangerous place. It isn't dangerous because aliens actively want to kill. It is dangerous because most of the aliens are indifferent. You want a sip of my drink? Sure, it's your funeral, literally.
The link I provided is to a tease of the book. The first three pages of the short story, The Subject is Closed, can be found on pages 19,20 and 21 (22-28 aren't available).
Chirpsithra are aliens that have been around for eons. One day a priest walked in and started talking to the "Chirps". After a while, he got nervous and let the bartender (and us) in on the conversation. The priest wanted to know if the aliens had souls
[Begin Niven]
"I don't know" she answered.
This was clearly the answer Hopkins wanted "I must have misunderstood," he said as he started to slip down off of his high bar stool.
"I told you we know as much as we want to know on the subject," said the alien. "Once there were those who knew more. They tried to teach us. Now we try to discourage religious experiments."
Hopkins slid back into his chair. "What were they? Chirpsithra saints?"
"No, The Sheepgupt were carbon-water-oxygen life, like you and me, but they developed around the hot F-type suns in the galactic core. "We rejected their pantheistic religion. They went away angry. It was some thousands of years before we met again. "We learned that their erstwhile religion had [given] way to what you would call agnosticism."
[End Niven]
[Resume TP]
Notice Nivens suble reference to the Sheepgupt in the past tense.
It turns out the entire race of Sheepgupt was now completely extinct. One of the multiple religious sects figured out the Ultimate Truth about God and the afterlife and documented it in such a way that anyone could understand it. Immediately following this feat every individual in the sect calmly killed themselves with no further explanation. All the different Sheepgupt religious sects investigated what the first sect learned and calmly killed themselves with no additional explanation. Chirpsithra sent their own scientists to investigate. These scientists were dispassionate Atheists but they too killed themselves with no additional explanation beyond the preliminary report that the first sect apparently found the single, OMA truth with enough proof that no one could question its accuracy.
Did the Sheepgupt kill themselves because there is absolutely no purpose to existence? Or was because there is definitely an afterlife and it makes no sense to delay the transition?
Will we ever reach a point where we will know "…as much as we want to know on the subject"? Have we already reached that point?
Niven's stories don't always try to make a point. Sometime they just provoke thinking.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 2, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Actually when I post directly on a scientific paper I generally get few responses. It is also common that a commenter will introduce religion into a thread and my religious comments in response will be noted rather than the remark that initiated the exchange.
Comment by Bradford — August 2, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Joy:
I don't know how microbes on Mars would affect literalists and their debunking counterparts who also tend to be literalists. I don't think Genesis has much to say about extraterrestrial microbes and to think that an earth-centric approach is demanded by Genesis misses the main theme of the book which is a moral one. The book introduces the main players in that drama- God and humanity. One more point concerning time- as one with a background in physics you would be able to explain better than me that time can be affected by a frame of reference. So is a day viewed from an earthly or heavenly perspective? Care need be taken to avoid dogma from any perspective.
Comment by Bradford — August 2, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Bradford:
Oh, I agree. It's just that the literalists I've known (and those who want to be literalists because their leadership tells them they have to be) seem to struggle mightily against the very thought that literalism might be error. The books can still be inerrant, FAPP, but they can't see it. Just about every now-developed literary form made its first official appearance in the Bible's rich literary tradition. None of it was written as a science textbook.
Time is indeed relative in spacetime geometry [4-D]. But unless you're talking aliens-as-gods, I don't think that counts for counting days as ages in Genesis.
I'm biased by my suspicion that because everything boils down to the true nature of time, and time only exists as a variable here in 4-D. Eternity comports more reasonably with Not-Time. So the original tribal tradition-keepers and bards could have made the specific 'days' connection for a specific purpose of transmitting to the people what the people could understand. There's a rich history of myth-making in humanity (it's one of the things that best helped develop our unique cognitive skills), and in the times of making great myths, everything – every nuance, every word, every syllable had deep (and often mystical) meaning.
The right wing of Protestant Christianity today doesn't have a direct historical connection to the cultural traditions that first spawned the mythology or formalized it in oral traditions and first wrote it down in the desert outside Sinai. What they understand of it by taking it literally in strict modern terms is IMO, error. Most of them wouldn't know ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek from Swahili, Punjabi or Mandarin. They just believe what their charismatic leaders tell them to believe, real world – and its real history – be damned.
I'm just wondering what it would take to convince them (or, the ones who can think for themselves and really care) that it's error. Or maybe that's entirely unnecessary, it'll fade away in time of sheer absurdity. I don't know, the mindset is entirely foreign to me, and humans have always harbored a range of relative sanity in all generations. Most people I've met who belong to sects with odd practices and beliefs are one-on-one bright enough to function well and not completely out of touch with reality. Most of 'em secretly believe dinosaurs existed, and the earth is older than the book's geneologies permit (if you date by human geneologies, accepting that people once lived 500-1000 years).
Some rather large percentage of humanity in every generation needs dogma. I don't know why, they just do. They need to be instructed and controlled by others, need to be constantly praised for piety or punished for messing up. I suspect that like the ~2-5% of every generation that is naturally homosexual, and the ~5-10% with no spiritual proclivities whatsoever, it's just a range of variation.
Dogma is the reason people kill each other over beliefs (as opposed to behavior), always has been. Even non-believers have been known to kill millions for the dogmas of their non-beliefs. It's still going on today, so we obviously haven't grown out of it.
Comment by Joy — August 2, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Hi Bradford,
Actually, I felt guilty when I posted my opposite day comment. It was unfair of me to let an opportunaty for making a joke override my better judgement.
Yes, you have made many science threads. I remember when you first started contributing to Telic Thoughts. You started the RNA World thread.
I thought it was great.
I have noticed the problem with few responses too. However, I suspect that more people read the science threads than you think. I thought my The Magic of Intelligent Design thread was a dud until Mike posted that it was the highest viewed thread for the month.
Later I found it had gotten voted positively in Diggs.
I think people are interested and read the science stuff but are shy because they aren't experts.
Everyone is an expert in voicing religious opinions.
Like it or not, P.Z.Myers' blog is popular because it mixes science and Culture War stuff. That and P.Z.Myers is a non-stop typing machine.
Myers' science stuff doesn't get an abundance of comments either.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 2, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:32 am
That makes me wonder if the guest thread option is still open now that Mike is inactive. I thought it was a good idea.
Comment by Bradford — August 3, 2008 @ 12:32 am
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:25 am
Odd, I have not noticed any correlation between religiosity and moral behavior. If setting a moral standard that they don't bother to follow is religion's claim to utility then I claim that their utility is long since past. Besides, the rule of secular law has supplanted the role of religion in establishing common moral standards anyway.
I agree. I enjoy the science stuff even if I comment less about it. If I wanted to be a bobble head I'd post endless "that's great" and "that'll show those creationists" responses on some pro-evolution group-think blog, but I prefer a good disagreement over a chorus of "me too"s. The science stuff is interesting but leaves me with nothing to disagree with or complain about. That is until some creationist posts about how the science really means the opposite of whatever the researcher is claiming.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — August 3, 2008 @ 1:25 am
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:45 am
Todd:
It is not religiosity that engenders moral steadfastness. It is divinely inspired conviction which I have seen in real individuals.
Laws are built on a foundation of moral principles- at least in theory. All too often they express special interests. Moral standards still have utility.
What I've noticed over the years is the discrepency between the researchers' own careful, precise wording and the more liberal interpretations of those referencing the results. That tendency is echoed by all sides in these exchanges.
Comment by Bradford — August 3, 2008 @ 9:45 am
August 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Joy writes:
For me, it doesn't really matter. I figure God created microbes in inhospitable places like ocean floor vents; I figure He can create them on Mars.
I'd also wonder if such microbial life might not have hitched a ride from Earth via solar/wind/volcanic expulsions etc, so finding life on Mars isn't much of a deal.
And even if we look further out, and find life in some other system besides the Sol system, again, God can create life where-ever He so desires, whether He's told us about it or not. I think the issue for most Creationists would be in finding sentient life capable of choosing right from wrong (the various definitions notwithstanding, etc).
Joy later writes that Creationists have
Kenter's jaw drops. Does Joy really believe that mainstream Creationist thought considers dinosaurs a Satanic deception? If so, then s/he is criticizing a line of thought s/he appears to be woefully ignorant about.
Maybe giving honest attention to the opponent's side would be more productive than misrepresenting/belittling and/or ignoring it.
(No offense intended to Joy, but it really seems like misrepresentation and/or ignorance is going on in his/her statement.)
Comment by kenter — August 3, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
August 3rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
kenter:
Oh, I'm not misrepresenting and I'm not ignorant. I married into a family (2 sons) of devout, genuine highland Presbyterians. Hubby, the elder son, managed to escape the church's clutches when he got drafted, despite some years of intense preparation. But for the most part, Presbyterians are Protestant 'orthodox' and have never had a problem with worldly things like science or evolution.
Younger brother hit an adult life-crisis due to serious injury, and "Got Saved" by the on-the-spot (hospital) Southern Baptists. Now he's a fully ordained minister of the faith and presides over his own church. We thus got to peek in on his transformation over the course of years, and how it's effected his family (four beautiful kids everybody's proud of). He had a hard time with dinosaurs, having gotten all the way to adulthood not doubting fossils one bit. Suddenly he was expected to disbelieve, and THAT was his biggest hurdle in the new faith. Oklahoma's chock full of fossils.
He's made peace with it mostly by never mentioning it. He doesn't believe it's a Satanic plot (or God just creating a fake history), but that's what he's heard from his leadership. He keeps his odd dogma misgivings to himself, is honestly one of the kindest, most devoted to others, most loving human beings I've ever had the privilege of knowing. And he's a darned inspiring preacher too, I don't mind saying. Full of spirit, funny enough to make you cry.
I have my own comedy routine, last performed before the PCUSA General Assembly (Louisville… what year was that?), on the difference between Baptists and Presbyterians. Straight from personal experience…
Brother Mo is a great speaker. He's funny, he'll hit you in the gut or in the heart, and every sentence he speaks comes accompanied by a chorus of loud "Amen, brother!" from the congregation. Heck, sometimes he doesn't even have to get the whole sentence out before the "Amens" start!
As one of just two or three Presbyterians in the back pew trying to be invisible when visiting, it always strikes me darned odd. Presbyterians never "Amen" anything! If you've got something to say about an issue, it first has to go to the council of elders. If they think there's a real issue, it gets codified in words and presented to the elders again for further edit. Once it's done editing, it goes to the congregation for yea or nay. If nay, it goes back for more re-writes.
Once you've got a yea, it goes to the Presbytery committee considering motions. They study and critique, add or subtract their own wording on the resolution, and when that's done it goes to the full Synod for approval. If the Synod approves, the petition goes all the way to the General Assembly, which is something spectacular to watch! The US Congress on its worst days is NOTHING compared to the debates that go on way into the night there.
Finally, if everybody decides you've got a real issue and all your t's are crossed and all your i's are dotted just right, it'll go down in the record as the official position of the greater church. At that point you can say "Amen" when the preacher talks about it from the pulpit, but do it quietly. Nobody wants to be distracted from their nap…
Comment by Joy — August 3, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
August 4th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Since this thread has digressed into something of a discussion about the theological implications extraterrestrial life (on Mars & else where) I’ve decided to throw in my two cents.
I’ve heard a number of self appointed spokesmen of science (in books, magazines and on the web) declare that the discovery of ET life would, like Copernicus’ discovery, revolutionize everyone’s worldview and threaten the very foundations of traditional religion.
Unfortunately such an opinion is an exaggeration by people who haven’t done their homework.
The reality is that theologians, including some very conservative “evangelical” theologians have “been there and done that.” Were they fundamentalists? Probably by today’s standards, in some ways, yes. But to be fair the term fundamentalist wasn’t coined till the early 20th Century. Furthermore, in recent years, as has already been pointed out, the term fundamentalist has tended to fall into disuse. It is now used, more often than not as a dismissive pejorative label.
A theological debate was ignited in the late 18th century by American political activist and ’free thinker” Thomas Paine who used the idea of pluralism (the idea the universe is populated by countless other worlds inhabited by countless other intelligent beings) to undermine some of the basic doctrines of the Christian faith. One of his arguments was to ask who died for sins of the extraterrestrials? Did Jesus have to “travel from world to world in an endless succession of death…?” Paine concluded that such a notion rendered “the Christian system of faith…absurd.”
This view that was published in Paine’s book Age of Reason was considered one of the main sources of the rise of religious skepticism. Christian ministers and theologians were forced to respond. Some responded by rejecting pluralism others reconciled the idea of extraterrestrial life and intelligence with the Christian theology.
Among them (as I wrote recently on another thread) was Timothy Dwight(1752-1817), the grandson of Jonathon Edwards and the 8th president of Yale University (1795-1817).
Michael Crowe writes in his book, The Extraterrestrial Life Debate, 1750-1900, that Dwight’s sermons reveal “an author open to the sciences, attracted to natural theology, and convinced of pluralism.” p175
Dwight himself preached in one of his sermons “the countless multitude of Worlds, with all their various furniture. With his own hand he lighted up at innumerable suns, rolled around them innumerable worlds… Throughout his vast empire, he surrounded his throne with intelligent creatures, to fill the immense and perfect scheme of being.”
Crowes 559 page book deals mainly with how theologians of the18th, and 19th centuries dealt with the new scientific knowledge that the stars were doubtless countless other suns surrounded by countless other systems of planets. Many theologians like Dwight concluded that they must be inhabited. Why else would God have created so many of them?
Not only were planets like Mars and Venus etc. considered possible abodes for intelligent life but scientists like William and John Herschel considered the Sun and Moon as places that could also be inhabited by intelligent beings.
So would the discovery of microbial life on Mars present a challenge to any ones theology?
To answer that question we need to ask two more questions: Do microbes sin? And do microbes need a savior?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 4, 2008 @ 11:26 pm