Ingenuity flies on Mars

[Suave]

Our first powered flight on another planet happened this morning on Mars.

The Ingenuity helicopter lifted off, flew for about 40 seconds and touched down again.

We have photos of the shadow from the helicopter and of the flight from the Perseverance Rover.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...-helicopter-succeeds-in-historic-first-flight

NASA's Mars helicopter Ingenuity successfully completed its historic first flight - CNN

One aspect of this is that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is about 1% that of Earth, so developing lift is tricky.

Our first powered flight on another planet happened this morning on Mars.

The Ingenuity helicopter lifted off, flew for about 40 seconds and touched down again.

We have photos of the shadow from the helicopter and of the flight from the Perseverance Rover.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...-helicopter-succeeds-in-historic-first-flight

NASA's Mars helicopter Ingenuity successfully completed its historic first flight - CNN

One aspect of this is that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is about 1% that of Earth, so developing lift is tricky.

 

[Deeje]

The earliest single-celled living organism might have been formed by the enclosure of naturally occurring self replicating R.N.A.strands and associated organic molecules within a naturally self assembling membrane consisting of lipids.

And there you have the words hidden in plain sight that is the difference between fact and assumption.....”might have”.....you do understand that it “might not have” equally, as well.....?

Any articles that I have read on the subject of evolution use these words (might have”...”could have” “leads us to conclude that” etc) routinely when describing what they believe took place so far back in history, that it is not really possible to establish anything factually, so educated guesswork takes the place of truth. All the ”evidence” in science’s estimations must of necessity point towards their theory which is interpreted accordingly, accepted by the majority, and defended with religious fervour. Any who take a different position or see a different interpretation, are basically forced into silence, or ridiculed out of academia.

This makes these space excursions to find life on other planets an exercise in futility IMO and a waste of resources that could be better spent on the life whose existence on this planet is under threat.....ironically in no small measure, by the actions and inventions of science.

 

[Revoltingest]

And there you have the words hidden in plain sight that is the difference between fact and assumption.....”might have”.....you do understand that it “might not have” equally, as well.....?

Any articles that I have read on the subject of evolution use these words (might have”...”could have” “leads us to conclude that” etc) routinely when describing what they believe took place so far back in history, that it is not really possible to establish anything factually, so educated guesswork takes the place of truth. All the ”evidence” in science’s estimations must of necessity point to towards their theory which is interpreted accordingly, accepted by the majority, and defended with religious fervour. Any who take a different position or see a different interpretation, are basically forced into silence, or ridiculed out of academia.

This makes these space excursions to find life on other planets an exercise in futility IMO and a waste of resources that could be better spent on the life whose existence on this planet is under threat.....ironically in no small measure, by the actions and inventions of science.

One thing we're certain of....life on Earth did start.
"Might have" is about investigating it.
We don't know how many paths of "might have" there are.
So "might not have" is implied, & thereby part of the process.
Ain't it wonderful.

 

[Deeje]

One thing we're certain of....life on Earth did start.
"Might have" is about investigating it.
We don't know how many paths of "might have" there are.
So "might not have" is implied, & thereby part of the process.
Ain't it wonderful.

It is when there is acknowledgment of the “might not have” in all conclusions. Just don’t present the “might have” as a “must have”....OK?

 

[Revoltingest]

It is when there is acknowledgment of the “might not have” in all conclusions. Just don’t present the “might have” as a “must have”....OK?

Who's doing that?
I'll help you spank'm.

 

[Deeje]

Who's doing that?
I'll help you spank'm.

We’ll need reinforcements......can we start with Dawkins and Coyne? Do you prefer a paddle or an open hand?

 

[Revoltingest]

We’ll need reinforcements......can we start with Dawkins and Coyne? Do you prefer a paddle or an open hand?

Paddle.
But you must present evidence, & make your case.

 

[Deeje]

Paddle.
But you must present evidence, & make your case.

Just watch any of their videos....I rest my case because they convict themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just watch any of their videos....I rest my case because they convict themselves.

I've never seen any of their videos.
Just don't sound interesting enuf.
"Forklift fail" videos are much better.

 

[Suave]

And there you have the words hidden in plain sight that is the difference between fact and assumption.....”might have”.....you do understand that it “might not have” equally, as well.....?

Any articles that I have read on the subject of evolution use these words (might have”...”could have” “leads us to conclude that” etc) routinely when describing what they believe took place so far back in history, that it is not really possible to establish anything factually, so educated guesswork takes the place of truth. All the ”evidence” in science’s estimations must of necessity point towards their theory which is interpreted accordingly, accepted by the majority, and defended with religious fervour. Any who take a different position or see a different interpretation, are basically forced into silence, or ridiculed out of academia.

This makes these space excursions to find life on other planets an exercise in futility IMO and a waste of resources that could be better spent on the life whose existence on this planet is under threat.....ironically in no small measure, by the actions and inventions of science.

Please let us agree there is overwhelming fossil evidence as well as genetic evidence proving all species share a common ancestry. Of course, evolution is a different theory than abiogenesis. Evolution is the net directional change in the cumulative characteristics of living organisms or populations over the course of many generations. Whereas, abiogenesis well explains how the earliest form of life began from inanimate substances on Earth.

 

[Deeje]

Please let us agree there is overwhelming fossil evidence as well as genetic evidence proving all species share a common ancestry.

The fossil evidence is not as overwhelming as people have been led to believe. Actually the fossil record is quite poor by science's own admission. Common ancestry is likewise not well supported IMO. Did you know that common ancestors are an 'assumption' because no one can ever tell you what they were....they are the infamous.....the missing links......and they are all still missing.

Of course, evolution is a different theory than abiogenesis. Evolution is the net directional change in the cumulative characteristics of living organisms or populations over the course of many generations. Whereas, abiogenesis well explains how the earliest form of life began from inanimate substances on Earth.

Yes, I am aware of the difference...and I am also aware that adaptation is the basis for belief in organic evolution....as if one naturally expands to explain the other (like if a little is good, a lot must be better).....that is where I would disagree with you. Abiogenesis, as a science, is almost completely divorced from evolution for obvious reasons IMO. There is no real basis for abiogenesis and no scientist has yet been able to duplicate what they assume was a fluke in their special organic "soup". How life changed is so easily explained (with a liberal amount of imagination) than trying to explain how life happened. You can pretend that its an unrelated question..... but the two go hand in hand. If you can't explain how life began, what is the point of trying to imagine how it changed over time?

There is substantiated evidence for adaptation in many species....but there is NO evidence that one species can eventually become another through the minor changes of the adaptive process....e.g. I cannot accept that whales were once four legged furry land dwellers the size of a dog......and no stretch of my imagination could take me there, just because science suggests that it "might" be true. What they present is a chain with no links.....can it be a chain then?

This is where evolution makes its assumptions and backs them up with supposition. I don't believe what science assumes but cannot prove. Its a godless theory and it makes no sense to me as a believer in the power of the Creator.

If we are all made by this same Creator, out of the same basic 'building' materials, then would it not stand to reason that the materials would be similar....and the engineering of skeletal structures, with movement capabilities involving an amazing array of muscles, and tendons to facilitate that for every creature, requires an engineer? What about other functions of various bodies to take in oxygen through lungs or gills....and then there are eyes....so many different kinds of eyes and modes of vision.....etc, would you expect to see such design without an intelligent designer?
I can't.

Everything in nature conforms to a proven standard.....much like buildings do, and if they don't, the building or life form deteriorates and fails. This is why buildings display compliance to certain rules of engineering and use of materials because they are proven to be successful by testing. And we accept this because we discovered what was in nature all along. Man has invented nothing really....he has just copied what is already in existence....but gives no credit to the originator of the design.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Please let us agree there is overwhelming fossil evidence as well as genetic evidence proving all species share a common ancestry.

Are you kidding me?

The fossil evidence provides no concrete support for CD. Just the opposite, in fact. Especially as more are discovered from the Cambrian Era, & deeper into the Ediacaran.

"Proving"? No way.

And DNA, the common thread of all life, w/ it's complex computer-like code, reinforces the idea that one intelligent Master Programmer was / is behind all it's diverse forms... "according to their kinds" .... In all phyla of Plantae, Animalia, and Archaea.

 

[Suave]

I... if man can't get it right here, what makes you think he could do any better under more extreme circumstances on another planet? Think of the nightmares of supplying air, water and food.....the three essentials for life to exist, let alone flourish.......and as far as we know, there is nothing like our earth anywhere close enough to travel to.....

The Perserverance rover has converted plentiful Carbon Dioxide from the Martian atmosphere into pure, breathable oxygen.

 

[Suave]

The fossil evidence is not as overwhelming as people have been led to believe. Actually the fossil record is quite poor by science's own admission. Common ancestry is likewise not well supported IMO. Did you know that common ancestors are an 'assumption' because no one can ever tell you what they were....they are the infamous.....the missing links......and they are all still missing.


Yes, I am aware of the difference...and I am also aware that adaptation is the basis for belief in organic evolution....as if one naturally expands to explain the other (like if a little is good, a lot must be better).....that is where I would disagree with you. Abiogenesis, as a science, is almost completely divorced from evolution for obvious reasons IMO. There is no real basis for abiogenesis and no scientist has yet been able to duplicate what they assume was a fluke in their special organic "soup". How life changed is so easily explained (with a liberal amount of imagination) than trying to explain how life happened. You can pretend that its an unrelated question..... but the two go hand in hand. If you can't explain how life began, what is the point of trying to imagine how it changed over time?

There is substantiated evidence for adaptation in many species....but there is NO evidence that one species can eventually become another through the minor changes of the adaptive process....e.g. I cannot accept that whales were once four legged furry land dwellers the size of a dog......and no stretch of my imagination could take me there, just because science suggests that it "might" be true. What they present is a chain with no links.....can it be a chain then?

This is where evolution makes its assumptions and backs them up with supposition. I don't believe what science assumes but cannot prove. Its a godless theory and it makes no sense to me as a believer in the power of the Creator.

If we are all made by this same Creator, out of the same basic 'building' materials, then would it not stand to reason that the materials would be similar....and the engineering of skeletal structures, with movement capabilities involving an amazing array of muscles, and tendons to facilitate that for every creature, requires an engineer? What about other functions of various bodies to take in oxygen through lungs or gills....and then there are eyes....so many different kinds of eyes and modes of vision.....etc, would you expect to see such design without an intelligent designer?
I can't.

Everything in nature conforms to a proven standard.....much like buildings do, and if they don't, the building or life form deteriorates and fails. This is why buildings display compliance to certain rules of engineering and use of materials because they are proven to be successful by testing. And we accept this because we discovered what was in nature all along. Man has invented nothing really....he has just copied what is already in existence....but gives no credit to the originator of the design.

Are you kidding me?

The fossil evidence provides no concrete support for CD. Just the opposite, in fact. Especially as more are discovered from the Cambrian Era, & deeper into the Ediacaran.

"Proving"? No way.

And DNA, the common thread of all life, w/ it's complex computer-like code, reinforces the idea that one intelligent Master Programmer was / is behind all it's diverse forms... "according to their kinds" .... In all phyla of Plantae, Animalia, and Archaea.

"The fossil record isn't the only evidence in support of evolution. There is other collaborating evidence, such as overwhelming genetic evidence of common ancestry between humans and other great ape species. ...

Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry:

Chromosome 2 in humans

Main article: Chromosome 2 (human)

Further information: Chimpanzee Genome Project § Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site

Figure 1b: Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere
Evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is found in the number of chromosomes in humans as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All hominidae have 24 pairs of chromosomes, except humans, who have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

The evidence for this includes:
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the common chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.

Chromosome 2 thus presents strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to J. W. Ijdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."

Figure 1b: Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

"Endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) are remnant sequences in the genome left from ancient viral infections in an organism. The retroviruses (or virogenes) are always passed on to the next generation of that organism that received the infection. This leaves the virogene left in the genome. Because this event is rare and random, finding identical chromosomal positions of a virogene in two different species suggests common ancestry. Cats (Felidae) present a notable instance of virogene sequences demonstrating common descent. The standard phylogenetic tree for Felidae have smaller cats (Felis chaus, Felis silvestris, Felis nigripes, and Felis catus) diverging from larger cats such as the subfamily Pantherinae and other carnivores. The fact that small cats have an ERV where the larger cats do not suggests that the gene was inserted into the ancestor of the small cats after the larger cats had diverged. Another example of this is with humans and chimps. Humans contain numerous ERVs that comprise a considerable percentage of the genome. Sources vary, but 1% to 8% has been proposed. Humans and chimps share seven different occurrences of virogenes, while all primates share similar retroviruses congruent with phylogeny."

 

[Deeje]

The Perserverance rover has converted plentiful Carbon Dioxide from the Martian atmosphere into pure, breathable oxygen.

Can you imagine what it would mean to preserve human or other life on such a hostile planet? Artificial life support would be needed in an unending way. A sustainable way to produce food, water and breathable air would be an unimaginable nightmare.

Wouldn’t it be better to clean up our world...the one with all the ways to sustain life without any artificial means? We take so much for granted when we contemplate what it would mean to live on a virtually dead planet and have to supply all those things in an artificial way, in perpetuity.

Offering life on a planet like Mars is hardly an alternative.....we can’t maintain healthy life here, so what makes us think a more difficult situation would even be a consideration given man’s all engrossing, self-serving attitude? Science is his servant.....

 

[Suave]

Can you imagine what it would mean to preserve human or other life on such a hostile planet? Artificial life support would be needed in an unending way. A sustainable way to produce food, water and breathable air would be an unimaginable nightmare.

Wouldn’t it be better to clean up our world...the one with all the ways to sustain life without any artificial means? We take so much for granted when we contemplate what it would mean to live on a virtually dead planet and have to supply all those things in an artificial way, in perpetuity.

Offering life on a planet like Mars is hardly an alternative.....we can’t maintain healthy life here, so what makes us think a more difficult situation would even be a consideration given man’s all engrossing, self-serving attitude? Science is his servant.....

I see Earth as already being too overcrowded, I'd like there to be more liveable space by way of terraforming Mars. I figure a trillion kilograms of Sulfur Hexafluoride would nearly double the Martian atmospheric pressure as well as warming the average temperature on Mars to above the freezing point of water., thereby enabling liquid surface water to sustain life. A few thousand rocket loads of Sulfur Hexafluoride delivered to Mars from Earth each year over the course of a few thousand years would cist less than $50 annually per person on Earth. Please let us agree this is a small price to pay for transforming Mars from a cold dry planet to a somewhat watery world habitable for technologically advanced human beings

 

[Deeje]

I see Earth as already being too overcrowded, I'd like there to be more liveable space by way of terraforming Mars.

Actually the earth is not overpopulated at all....it’s just that humans have tended to congregate in areas where they can either subsist or earn money to live. When man started to rely on others for his necessities, he became a slave to the systems that control them. Who has easy access to life’s essentials today....for a price? Originally everything was free....provided by the Creator in endless supply....water from the clouds, Co2, nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, sunlight for photosynthesis and seeds in plants for the next season’s food. A perpetual cycle and recycle of what God originally created.

Imagine all the places on earth that are deserts like Mars, but have air to breathe and hidden water beneath them. Why not transform Earth’s deserts like some nations have done and create more living space? Vast areas could become more habitable.

Did you never wonder what the Creator had in mind when he told the humans to “fill the earth”? He never said “overfill it” did he?

I figure a trillion kilograms of Sulfur Hexafluoride would nearly double the Martian atmospheric pressure as well as warming the average temperature on Mars to above the freezing point of water., thereby enabling liquid surface water to sustain life. A few thousand rocket loads of Sulfur Hexafluoride delivered to Mars from Earth each year over the course of a few thousand years would cist less than $50 annually per person on Earth. Please let us agree this is a small price to pay for transforming Mars from a cold dry planet to a somewhat watery world habitable for technologically advanced human beings

It addresses only one problem....there are so many more....one of which is the nature of man himself....I think you are being way too optimistic and not thinking this through.

I like the Creator’s plan better. If he gave us the ability to procreate, then once his purpose was fulfilled I can see that he might have two choices....
1. To cease reproduction and allow the earth to provide for its limited population.....or....
2. To make other planets habitable like he did with the earth, and start new life there.

We really don’t know what his plans are for this vast Universe of which we are only an insignificant speck.....but I am eager to find out.....

 

[Suave]

Actually the earth is not overpopulated at all....it’s just that humans have tended to congregate in areas where they can either subsist or earn money to live. When man started to rely on others for his necessities, he became a slave to the systems that control them. Who has easy access to life’s essentials today....for a price? Originally everything was free....provided by the Creator in endless supply....water from the clouds, Co2, nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, sunlight for photosynthesis and seeds in plants for the next season’s food. A perpetual cycle and recycle of what God originally created.

Imagine all the places on earth that are deserts like Mars, but have air to breathe and hidden water beneath them. Why not transform Earth’s deserts like some nations have done and create more living space? Vast areas could become more habitable.

Did you never wonder what the Creator had in mind when he told the humans to “fill the earth”? He never said “overfill it” did he?


It addresses only one problem....there are so many more....one of which is the nature of man himself....I think you are being way too optimistic and not thinking this through.

I like the Creator’s plan better. If he gave us the ability to procreate, then once his purpose was fulfilled I can see that he might have two choices....
1. To cease reproduction and allow the earth to provide for its limited population.....or....
2. To make other planets habitable like he did with the earth, and start new life there.

We really don’t know what his plans are for this vast Universe of which we are only an insignificant speck.....but I am eager to find out.....

I suspect our genetic code's Creator's plan for us humans is to be fruitful and multiply, this meaning the heavens are for the taking by person-hood kind.

 

[Deeje]

I suspect our genetic code's Creator's plan for us humans is to be fruitful and multiply, this meaning the heavens are for the taking by person-hood kind.

Not quite sure what that means...but it was the Creator's intention to have humankind inhabit this earth forever......mortal beings were given the means to perpetuate their lives without sickness, ageing or death interfering with that life.

Heaven is for spiritual creatures, whereas we were designed for the earth and the earth was designed for us. I can see that quite clearly.

There never was heaven in our destiny in the original blueprint.....but someone messed up on the orders they were given and we ended up here.....thankfully it's not forever but sometimes detours can take you far out of your way in order to bring you to your destination.

 

[sayak83]

Saw that this morning. While its kind of cool, Its not impressing to me.

On earth about 57% of land is considered uninhabitable. That's around 33% desert and around 24% mountainous.

If we can't inhabited that we aren't going to inhabit Mars.

Not to mention all that's $$$ being spent could go toward feeding the hungry and housing the homeless.

That's me though.

What the attempt to develop colony on Mars would result in developing strategies and technologies in how to use little resource to maximum effect with near zero waste. That would be extremely helpful on earth as well as this century progresses.