(November 28, 2014 at 1:26 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(November 27, 2014 at 11:17 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Just want to point out piece of very important information before the deniers start attacking.

(bold is mine)

Not unless there is a shadow ecology that we didn't know about on the Antarctic ice sheet. Needless to say that would be just as astounding a find

---

Oh and that would be the third of life on earth alone

Shadow ecology is very unlikely. They checked the ice around the area.

Quote:Two of the carbonaceous chondrites contained a diverse array of nucleobases and structurally similar compounds known as nucleobase analogs. Intriguingly, three of these nucleobase analogs are very rare in Earth biology, and were not found in soil and ice samples from the areas near where the meteorites were collected at the parts-per-billion limits of their detection techniques.

---

(November 28, 2014 at 2:56 am)Alex K Wrote: I don't get it... Is there a joke in there somewhere? The article seems 3 years old..

It is 3 years old.

This is 'Murrica. We take scientific reporting when we can get it.

It isn't something important like who Parks Hilton is blowing, you know.

So if it's years old and has not made big headlines, what does that mean? Couldn't be replicated since?

(November 28, 2014 at 11:47 am)Alex K Wrote: So if it's years old and has not made big headlines, what does that mean? Couldn't be replicated since?

Oh, but it made headlines. I remember reading about it. That's why I was surprised too at it coming up now. Might have gone under in the states though, since I vaguely remember it must have been at the same time Tiger Woods was fucking around and - as minimalist said - this kind of news seem to be more important than crappy science stuff.

(November 27, 2014 at 10:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote: http://www.ibtimes.com/nasa-dna-found-me...ace-828233

Quote:NASA: DNA Found on Meteorites Indicates Life May Have Originated in Space

Quote:NASA researchers have found the building blocks for life in meteorites, indicating that the components for life on Earth may have originated in outer space.

Researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greebelt, Md., report evidence that ready-made DNA parts could have crashed to the surface on objects like meteorites, and then assembled under Earth's early conditions to create the first DNA.

No wonder the republicunts don't want to fund NASA. Jesus can't handle the competition.

Annoyingly we cannot tell if these meteorites were formed from early-Earth collisions - which means they could have been thrown off long before Earth DNA parts mutated into what we recognise today - and retained their original structures. The fact they are in near-Earth orbits (or at least were before they crashed here) coupled with the higher probability they originated from a body on or close to their orbit paths only supports this.

It's good evidence but not conclusive.

MM

I noted 2 interesting words in that news release.
The word "May" and the word, "Could".
Seems those words come up frequently in dissertations about origins too.
I wonder why?
May (be) when elephants fly we Could ride them.
See, I can use those words just like NASA.

And you still seem like a fucktard when you do.

MAYbe your fucking god COULD have created the universe....but it sure as shit seems like a stupid idea.

(November 28, 2014 at 12:01 pm)professor Wrote: I noted 2 interesting words in that news release.
The word "May" and the word, "Could".
Seems those words come up frequently in dissertations about origins too.
I wonder why?
May (be) when elephants fly we Could ride them.
See, I can use those words just like NASA.

Because they're scientists. And if they're not a hundred percent sure, it's still "may". Even if it's a 99.9%. You're the ones with the positive claims without having even one shred of evidence other than that old book.

(November 28, 2014 at 12:01 pm)professor Wrote: I noted 2 interesting words in that news release.
The word "May" and the word, "Could".
Seems those words come up frequently in dissertations about origins too.
I wonder why?

You wonder why?

OK, lets pretend I'm holding a rubber ball enclosed in my fist.
I ask two people what the color they think the ball is. I'll give 2 clues, it's cool and it's common.

Person A says "Blue is a cool color. And it is a common color. And I have seen blue rubber balls before. The ball is blue. I'm completely certain of this."
Person B says "Blue is a cool color. And it is a common color. And I have seen blue rubber balls before. So it may be blue. It could even likely be blue."

Person A, even if they turn out right, will come out looking like an idiot, because given the information, it's impossible to know for certain what color the ball is. Could have ended up being purple or green, among other colors.

Given your statement, I assume when asked a question you never answer in possibilities.
Like, if someone handed you a box and asked "How much do you think this weighs?" You'd answer "20 pounds." Not, around 20 pounds, or more than 10 pounds, or etc....

(November 28, 2014 at 12:01 pm)professor Wrote: I noted 2 interesting words in that news release.
The word "May" and the word, "Could".
Seems those words come up frequently in dissertations about origins too.
I wonder why?
May (be) when elephants fly we Could ride them.
See, I can use those words just like NASA.

So you don't know anything about the practices of science, nor even basic logic. So maybe just stop talking about them, so we won't have to filter out more ignorant rambling?

Or are you actually trying to say that the confidence with which an idea is expressed correlates in any way to the truth of that idea? That a lie expressed with perfect confidence is true, whereas a truth expressed with hesitance is a lie? Is that what you're saying? And if you're not, then why the fuck would you bring up the wording choices- which are probabilistic since, unlike theism, science doesn't work under childish notions of certainty- at all? Are you going to acknowledge that evidence plays a part in whether an idea is true or not, and that the evidence in this case supports the idea that you're disagreeing with based on mindless nitpicking?