Hypocritical Response Squad?
Offline admin edit: the following post was used by a dishonest Christian blogger named Frank Walton, this is the ony post about Frank Walton you ever need to know.
________
When I found RRS, I was very excited to find other like-minded people to have rational conversations with. Where I live that is something very hard to come by. Even on the internet, it seems like everyone is still in the closet about their real beliefs.
I am always open to new ideas and consider any theory possible at first. If the person talking (or writer/blogger) has a better knowledge than me, I will listen to their story, ask probing questions, and learn everything they are willing to share. If I know more than the other person, I will hear them out and give the best response I can.
If I hear crazy conspiracy theories such as aliens are running our government, I will start by assessing the real possibility of it, taking all information into account, then estimate a likely percentage of truth. In this case I would say about 0.01%. Gov't hiding information of aliens, about 70%. 9/11 being an inside job, about 60%. I give these percentages because I don't know for sure, but given all the information I can find, I estimate a likeliness. I do the same for psychological, biological, and social analysys.
The reason I titles this "Hypocritical Response Squad" is because this group appears to be very open minded, willing to have a "rational" debate about topics. It even advertises that:
Sapient wrote:attacks personal or otherwise, are not acceptable, especially from people who aren't willing to admit that they could be wrong.
I have brought up a few topics for debate in which I did not feel like were being rationally debated, and even at times I felt as though i was being personally attacked for my ideas. Most of the time these are not even "my ideas", they are interpretations of other people's ideas, which I then estimate a percentage of possibility. So I don't necessarily "believe" these things, but I do give them consideration.
Two topics in particular are the 9/11 conspiracy (which I said I give a 60% chance of), and most recently, the idea of panspermia. Panspermia is the idea that life can be ejected off one planet (by means of comet collision or other method) and land on another planet and still be able to spread. This is a unique case because with the number of planets and meteors/asteroids, it almost has to happen somewhere in the universe, so I give the idea a 99.9% chance, but the odds of it happening to a given planet are more like 1 in a billion. I give the idea of fundamental building blocks of life forming life a 99.9(repeating)% chance, but again, the odds of it happening on a given planet 1 in a billion. Given both of these methods of life existing on a planet, both seem to have about the same likeliness.
I got flamed for supporting this idea, with comments like I had no understanding about how life or the universe works. I felt like my intellect was being attacked, and the debate on the topic did not get anywhere. So much for the "attacks personal or otherwise, are not acceptable" part. How about the "especially from people who aren't willing to admit that they could be wrong". Some quick searches will reveal that I am not retarded, and that RRS could actually be wrong.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/1998/december2/marsunder122.html
The idea that Martian microbes may have traveled to Earth as stowaways on meteorites sounds like science fiction, but it may be a good idea. George Thompson, professor emeritus of geophysics, says "the travel time and conditions in transit are probably tolerable for beasts like those found in bore holes," that is, thermophilic organisms. And the recent discovery of evidence of possible life forms in Martian meteorite ALH84001 makes interplanetary immigration of organisms from Mars seem less outlandish.The study was funded by the NASA Exobiology Program. SR
Posted on Stanfords website, funded by NASA, and I am the one with no understanding of life or the universe? I really don't care that much about panspermia, I just don't like being attacked personally when I am simply trying to get new ideas out in the open.
What? What topics where these in? Who insulted you?
What are you talking about?
In the article above who are you referring to as RRS/hypocrite RS?
As far as I know all of the core members of the squad agree that life on earth could've started from alien life. Emphasis on could've.
He's not the man he wants you to think he is. Go to The Real John McCain to learn about the double talk express. View these videos about John McCain to learn about the flip-flopping double talker.
Adam,
You were making a lot of very improbable claims, and I do not think you know much concerning the evolution of life on this planet. You often confused evolution with abiogenesis, and suggested that this sort of super-anti-radiation bacteria could have traversed space and made it into our atmosphere and somehow initiated life on this earth. It is an incredulous claim. In order for your claim to have happened the following would have had to occur:
1.) bacteria manages to somehow hitch a ride off the original planet, surviving exfil from that planets atmosphere.
2.) bacteria would have to survive the cold of space
3.) bacteria would have to be able top withstand full radioactivity from billions of stars without the benefit of an atmosphere to shield it from destruction.
4.) after traveling millions (billions?) of lightyears through conditions such as black holes, radiation, the subzero temperatures, other collisions with asteroids and meteors, etc.. it has to survive entry into our atmosphere (assuming it passed close enough to be caught in earths gravitational field, and not the moon's gravity)
5.) the bacteria would have to have been completely unsusceptable to all sorts of radiation to survive space, so in order for it to have seeded our planet, and being as we are very susceptable to radiation poisoning, it would have to deevolve into substandard bacteria from its super bacteria state.
6.) would then evolve normally without any trace of it being from another planet
To claim this shows an utter ignorance of how evolution occured, and how abiogenesis would have occured. I was not flaming you as much as calling a spade a spade. Anything is, of course, possible, but not everything is probable. There in lies the difference.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
I would consider evolution possible in places other than this planet, which is the only form of evolution you are basing your opinion on. If you accept the obvious fact that life can originate on another planet, you have to accept the fact that it will also evolve in the conditions it originates in. That eliminates points 2, 3, and 5.
Points 1 and 4 are simply a part of the theory and the reason I give it a 1 in a billion chance.
Point 6 is irrelevant since there is no way to prove life did begin on this planet. We can not be sure our "control" subject is a valid comparison. Besides, this entire planet was made from space debris coming together in the early stages. As I said before, what is the difference of WHEN the material possible for life came to this planet? It could have been some of the first elements that congealed into a planetary form, or maybe that original material was void of water, carbon, and oxygen (which is very likely), but then those materials only started splattering into the planet hundreds of millions of years later.. or maybe (as the theory suggests), the partially or fully built life forms crashed here a billion years after the planet formed.
It's not this topic I care about, it's a rational debate i'm looking for, and not being referred to as having "utter ignorance"
Sorry, I forgot one more thing... Since I am not worthy of debate on this topic due to my utter ignorance, I urge you to aim any other claims of your superior knowledge to the author in the link I provided earlier, or to Stanford in general for allowing that on their website.
You simply do not understand all the factors involved for me to discuss this with you. You are still confusing evolution and abiogenesis. You are ignorant of the subject matter. Sorry.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Three things:
1) I don't think you necessarily eliminated Rook's points 2, 3, and 5 with what you've said. It looked to me as if he was saying that even if life did evolve on another planet (which is probably has), it's the LEAVING the planet, traversing space, and then successfully landing on another planet that is the improbable part of your story. If a bacteria evolved on another planet, it would evolve under the conditions of that planet, which would definitely NOT be the same conditions that bacteria would find while traversing space. In fact, the new conditions would likely be pretty extreme in comparison.
Also, even if that were true, you've only said that some already-evolved life arrived on our planet. You haven't explained the origins of life at all, because you've completely left out abiogenesis, which would still be a mystery.
2) I don't think bacteria could have arrived during the earth's formative stages, considering that it was being bombarded hundreds of times a day by debris and that it was hot and volcanic as (literally, I suppose) hell. If we knew of bacteria that lived inside of magma, that would be one thing, but the best we've got is life around volcanic heat vents, and that's only after the planet acquires water, which it didn't have in its formative stages. (Apparently even the majority at NASA think water is crucial to life, hence the obsession with Europa and whatnot). So I don't think your proposition that life could have started when the earth started is very likely to be true.
3) I've also heard that panspermia is a possibility for explainaing life on this planet, but I've yet to read any credible scientist who views it as the best possible explanation, and I don't think that scientists are thinking of it in the same way you seem to be.
When NASA says that life may have been seeded on this planet via a comet or an asteroid, I don't think that they mean that fully formed, living bacteria were planted on the earth. But they have discovered liquids that contain basic proteins in some meteorites that we've recovered. I think what they mean is that the ingredients for life may have been delivered, not the fully functioning life itself.
Also, the quote you've posted is just one scientist giving a hypothesis of sorts. You'd have to show us some evidence and research before we start viewing it as an acceptable explanation.
Conspiracy theories seem to make sense at first, too, but they often get debunked with research. Just because it makes sense doesn't mean that it's right.
We don't just accept the "popular view" here; we accept the views with the most solid evidence based on research.
The evidence for your case is, at best, an appeal to authority. An authority who, I might add, is not saying that the explanation given is the case.
"When did I realize I was God? Well, one day I was praying and I realized I was talking to myself."
considering yourself too smart and the other person too dumb is a horrible way to claim a victory in a debate.
Like I said, I do not care that much about this topic. I wanted a good spirited debate with logical thinkers. The continued attacks are not helping the situation.
I still maintain that this is just another scientific theory that will be shunned by people that follow the mantra of "the way things have always been", or "the only way we've known it to be" until enough evidence is discovered to make it mainstream. I wish I could have got your opinions on the dozen other similar scientific theories such as black holes, meteor impacts, or this crazy "Sun centered" system people believe now before they were publicly accepted.
He's got a lot of shit to do, so if he feels like the knowledge difference doesn't stack up to a satisfying discussion that is worth taking time out from other things, that's where the debate ends. But it's his website, so you can't really complain. He's not saying that he beat you in a debate; he's saying that he doesn't feel like debating you.
Look at the bolded text. YES. This is not a website where we point out to people what we think could probably be true. This is a website where we point out to people what the majority of the scientific community have agreed is the best explanation given the research so far.
In other words, your panspermia thing not having enough documented research in support of it is acceptable grounds for us to shrug it off. Does that mean that nothing about your panspermia theory is right? Not necessarily. But we're not going to go around preaching to people that life started via panspermia if there is no research or documentation to support it. Why would we do that?
It's probable that, on some distant planet, there are leopard-skinned penguins, or something similar. That doesn't mean that there really are such animals, it only means that it's conceivable. But without research and documentation, I'm not going to go around telling everyone about leopard-skinned penguins.
That's a bit of a silly comparison, but it's the same point.
The sun-centered system is "crazy"? I hope that was said ironically.
"When did I realize I was God? Well, one day I was praying and I realized I was talking to myself."
I think that the majority of the arguments presented by Rook were ok, but bacterial spores can survive conditions that are extremely harsh including frozen in ice for 250 million years. Also, Archaebacteria have been found in some the harshest and most alien places on earth such as near volcanic fissures in the deep ocean. Those who think panspermia is possible say that life may have come from Mars originally, and between Mars and Earth there are no blackholes, wormholes, etc. So, I don't think panspermia is completely unrealistic, but the idea is definitely a radical departure from current thinking that has not stood the test of time. I would not call panspermia a closed case exactly.
There is a difference between being frozen in ice and being bombarded by deadly radiation every second. Although the frozen part would obviously be there.
Where water is present. Water is necessary for life. In order for this sort of process to have existed, water would have had to be present which is not the case for Adam's theory.
Again, ignoring the radiation which IS ABUNDANT between Mars and Earth, even between Earth and the Moon.
I would say it is so improbable that to consider it possible is a stretch.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
This is a fallacy of ad ignorantium. You cannot argue for something solely on grounds of the fact that it may be proven true in the future from citing precedents , nor can you appeal to the possibility that just because something is a radical proposal, that somehow gives weight to the hypothesis (this is the opposite of ad antiquitatem, an appeal to modernity). It is true that the mainstream scientific community had and has been wrong on many counts of things that were later accepted, including germ theory and plate techtonics. Contrarily, mainstream opinion has rejected concepts that later turned out to be incorrect anyway, such as N-rays and polywater. You cannot appeal to the possibility that the hypothesis in question might be correct merely rejected solely on grounds of precedent, otherwise any proposition could be justified this way. Whenever a radical proposal has been rejected and later accepted, the acceptance always came from that the principle gained a massive amount of evidence for it. That does not seem to be the case here, so this appeal cannot be made.
As for Panspermia explaining abiogenesis, I find it dubious. Whilst it is possible that certain organic molecules were synthesized elsewhere before landing on Earth (such as the base portion of nucelotides or amino acids), the propositon that the actual proto-biological polymers were seeded seems dubious at best, for the reasons some already outlined, but also because there is simply Occam's Razor to contend with. Our planet is hospitable to biological life, it is within astrophysical conditions that allow it. There don't seem to be any planets in very close proximity that have similar characteristics, and ever if there were, the probability of life-carrying seeding actually getting pulled in by Earth's gravity is mind-bogglingly small, assuming they survived any embarking from the planet upon which they were synthesized, which is also probabilistically absurd, whereas the principle of chemical evolution of autocatalysis is demonstratably useful and coherent.
Furthermore, Panspermia is unhelpful. If we are to apply proper abductive reasoning, we find it is elminated by Occam's Razor, that being that since there is no serious evidence to weight in particular favor of the theory, whether or not it has a good probability of being true must be decided upon by the elimination of superfluous concepts, and the idea that life came from another planet onto ours is certainly superfluous given that ours seems perfectly adept at being hospitable to biological life. I am certainly not suggesting that other planets are incapable of supporting life, probabilsitically, there must be billions of such planets, but being that ours has this capacity, the addition of life being brought here from other planets, given that the survival of biological molecules via intersteraller travel is so unlikely, seems like a completely useless theory. That is added to that it does not explain the origin of life, or the processes by which life arose, instead it invents a deus ex machina, an irreconcilable plot line.
Scientia potentia est
From what I gather, you are promoting two thougths here (correct me if I am wrong)
1. New theories do not deserve any credit because since it is "new", no one would know about it so it could not be accepted by the majority of scientists. Therefore a "new" theory deserves no credit. Even the theory of gravity falls under this category. No one should have given it any credit because it did not already have credit.
I give all new theories that make just as much sense as existing theories the same amount of credit. They ALL have to pass the same bullshit test regardless of age or public acceptance. Hopefully the sarcasm above (#1) is not what you really think, but regardless, it is close, and that just being science sheep and not thinkers.
2. It is infinitely more likely for life to form on each planet it exists on independently than for it to be brought there by other means.
Imagine this: Life did not exist at all. The entire universe is simply stars, planets, etc, but NO life. This would make perfect sense to me if I was an observer. The concept of life does not even exist. If another observer were to make a theory claiming life might exist, I would think he was a lunatic. The odds of life forming AT ALL are so miniscule, no observer considers it possible.
I guess my main question is what do you think the odds of life forming on a lifeless planet are? (considering the conditions are right) Actually, I have not recognized anyone suggesting any of their ideas on the origin of life on this planet (maybe it's posted somewhere on this website, if so send a link and i'll read it). From what I read it's almost as if you're promoting creation, since you are discrediting all other ideas and not suggesting a better one. I'd love to hear alternative ideas instead of bashing
Surely you mean incredible?
Some life has survived in pretty extreme conditions. If the "ship" it hitches a ride on had some residual heat or source of heat within it for the ride, it's not completely unbelievable that it should reach another planet and seed life there.
This isn't true. The further you are from the source of radiation, the less powerful its effect on you. Unless the "ship" passed through every one of those "billions of stars" then it wouldn't have to withstand the "full radiactivity". Only a very weak one - until it gets close to our early earth and its sun.
Are we here making the assumption that if panspermia is possible, only one asteroid in the history of the universe has a chance of carrying life? The odds of one life bearing piece of rock hitting a planet that it can make flourish with life are pretty low. But if this happens on more than one occasion, the odds would drop.
The earth's atmosphere is different now to what it once was. I'm not sure if this would make it easier for life bearing rocks to make impact without burning up - but I suspect it would.
As above, it wouldn't have to have some sort of radiation resisting superpower. But even if it did, that could just be the result of it being some form of extremophile. Eg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioresistant
The problem with life is that even simple life is incredibly complex. Once you have life, whether it be a super-radiation resisting hero or not, you're over the hardest hurdle. Not that what follows isn't hard still.
The reason, as I understand it, for conjecturing panspermia, is that the conditions thought hostile for abiogenesis are the conditions that early earth appears to have had. Panspermia lets you say that life may have arisen somewhere with a more hospitable atmosphere then made its way here.
What on earth is this point supposed to be making? Would you look for its passport? Or perhaps an ancient buried space ship? What sort of trace would you find that we came from another planet?
Anyway, I personally think that panspermia is misguided - that any theory of abiogenesis apart from intelligent design is doomed to failure. But I don't see why it can't be considered anyway. As atheists, I think you've rejected the idea too quickly - or at least you have, Rook. There are reasons why panspermia was proposed, and its not just because it makes good science fiction.
Recently species of bacteria and fungi have been found that use radioactivity as a source for energy in the same way that plants use sunlight. Also, one of remarkable things about archaebacteria is their remarkable resistance to radiation. The other remarkable thing about archaebacteria is that they arose 3.5 billion years ago. I want to point out that I am not saying that panspermia is the way it happened, but some very scholarly publications (Nature, Science, etc.) have published articles about it. Francis Crick was originally a proponent of panspermia. Of course now that we have knowledge of the existance of self replicating RNA (RNA viruses) and protein (prions) based systems, most scientists believe that these are the original sources of life on Earth.
I'm glad you demonstrated an inability to read. I said a proposition cannot be argued for solely on grounds that it is radical any more than a proposition can be argued for solely on grounds that it is Orthodox.
For example if I said
X is unlikely to be true since it is not accepted by the mainstream
I would be making an ad antiquitatem fallacy.
On the other hand, if you said
X is just being rejected because it is not mainstream
without arguing for X, then you would be making an appeal to novelty.
But you don't know the existing theories do you? Can you tell me what a ribozyme is, how chemical natural selection works? Can you tell me how in vitro selection of ribozymes by elution works? Are you familiar with the central dogma of molecular biology (note, it is not called that because it is religiously adhered to. It is called so because it seems to be so ubiquitous t o all life)
I did not say that. I said that if our planet has the capacity for life to form, and is hospitable to it, then why do you feel the need to inject superfluous identities into the equation? Occam's Razor must be applied. In this regard, the theory is unscientific.
Absurd. Stars will generate via nucleosynthesis and supernovae the necessary elements for the formation of terrestrial planets and biological life. The arisal of biological life is not some random one in a billion thing. Chemical evolution is as well established as biological evolution.
Well, I'm in the middle of writing a 37-part lecture on molecular evolution, of which 5 parts are devoted to chemical evolution. And believe me, there are truly far better theories than Panspermia, and by better, I mean testable.
Scientia potentia est
1) The RRS Official position on this is exactly the same as our position on everything else: Show us the evidence.
2) At present, there is scant evidence for this theory. There is a potentially plausible hypothesis which might be theoretically possible. That's not much.
3) Those who are arguing against it are performing science. Science is the process of trying to prove things wrong. If all their attempts to argue against it prove to be invalid, there might be something to it.
In short, your accusation that we are closeminded is unfounded. Present us with the peer reviewed papers. Present us with the science. Don't just bitch about us not jumping on your bandwagon. Give us overwhelming evidence, and we'll be happy to agree with you.
Credulity is much easier to sustain when we've been taught that facts are things to be memorized and repeated, rather than sought out and discovered.
-- Me
But this is the problem with it. Unlike all of the other theories of the origin of life, it doesn't make any testable predictions. THat being the case, how does one falsify it.
In fact, just last week I was doing a real experiment regarding a genuine biochemical theory about the origin of life (and no, it is not "God did it". That is also unscientific. It makes no testable predictions). It was not my experiment (I don't do primordial chemistry) I was just monitoring it, out of interest.
These experiments are simple, and are done en masse. THe purpose is to find as many ribozyme structural RNA sequences as possible. It begins with an enormous number of DNA molecules, randomly generated sequences, then transcribed in vitro to leave us with an enormous pool of RNA molecules. These will fold by themselves into conformations based on complementary base pairing. In doing this, we add a vast number of substrates to each test tube, for example, Adenosine triposphate, or Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide. Once an RNA can catalyse the transfer reaction, they incorporate the reactive subunit, and since the glass is lined tightly with binding agents that will capture only the reactive group, the ribozyme will fall through, whilst the ones without catalytic ability will be sifted out, such is called elution. The purpose of this is to build a databank of known RNA sequences with autocatalytic abilities, although the number must surely be enormous. After that, if any RNA molecules manage to catalyze anything, they are reverse transcribed back into DNA. The DNA is amplified several billion times by the Polymerase chain reaction, and then the RNA is forced back through the step of elution again (and again). This is a simulation of chemical natural selection, and is a useful information-gathering step in learning of how RNA catalysis constructured pre-cellular metabolism, although the experiment can be done on a much wider scale using lipid bilayers, since those form by themsleves and certainly preceded the dawn of cellular life.
Scientia potentia est
Check this out, Antics:
Deluded, you're correct. I had not really thought this all the way through. On further reflection, and in light of your correction of my statement, I am revising my statement.
The idea you are proposing is not falsifiable, so it's not even up to the standards by which we could apply good science to it.
See? We're very open to good argumentation.
Credulity is much easier to sustain when we've been taught that facts are things to be memorized and repeated, rather than sought out and discovered.
-- Me
Hamby, This idea does not need to be falsifiable, it just needs to be proven. Once it is proven, it would be illogical to assume it could be or would need to be falsified.
I said "Imagine this:", which means a hypothetical.
That part was not aimed at you, it was in response to Archeopteryx. Anyway, I do not need to know ALL existing theories, although I do as much research into as many of them as I can, I just assess new theories based on what I do know.
I assume you were being sarcastic?.. I would probably not be arguing with someone if I did not have basic understanding of grade school biology. I do not claim to know everything like many people around here act like (not referring to you on that part)
Anyway, I thought of another question related to this topic which is open for more analysys and less "faith".
First, what do you think the odds are of humans planting life on mars, intentionally or not, within the next 100 years? Next, what do you think the odds are of humans dying off, naturally or through self-destruction, within the next 500-1000 years? If you consider both of those fairly likely, even remotely, then the next question is what do you think the odds are of life evolving to intelligence on mars? If all three of these scenarios are remotely possible, then would one of these intelligent martians be crazy to think they were brou