# lookie here!   More Mars evidence!



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 2, 2011)

"unlike any seen before"

http://news.yahoo.com/mars-samples-unlike-seen-062036007.html


----------



## bullethead (Sep 2, 2011)

Thank you?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 2, 2011)




----------



## ambush80 (Sep 2, 2011)

What would it mean to you if they discover evidence of bacterial life having existed on Mars some time ago?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 2, 2011)

Hmmmm....well....I'd probably let all the hype die down, like it did with the martian meteorite media frenzy that happened not long ago.   It's always good to wait for scientists who aren't directly connected to the money flow to evaluate the evidence, as was the case with the martian meteorite microbial life fiasco.    

It may come as a shock, but I'd really fight believing that it was actually bacterial life.       206 gene minimum.   (thanks for the latest figures, Bullet)


----------



## bullethead (Sep 2, 2011)

Maybe they will find a Virus instead. Those pesky buggers are tenacious, take HIV Virus for example....it has SIX genes.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 2, 2011)

Or.... being that MODERN cells need 200+ genes to be "alive"(possible needing and getting all those genes through evolution), the cells on mars could be very simple much like a single cell on earth a few billion years ago, and may very well be alive with a single gene??

Does anyone know for sure either way??


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 2, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Maybe they will find a Virus instead. Those pesky buggers are tenacious, take HIV Virus for example....it has SIX genes.



lol   you're tipping your hand, Bullet.   The criteria for the minimum gene set was the "simplest, self-replicating" cell.  A virus isn't self-replicating.   It has to invade another cell to make more of itself.  

You're welcome!!!


----------



## bullethead (Sep 2, 2011)

How the heck can it invade another cell?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 2, 2011)

bullethead said:


> How the heck can it invade another cell?





always glad to help you out, Bullet!   Here's a quick science lesson for you....   How a virus replicates.   It needs a host.

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4567511_viruses-reproduce.html


You're welcome.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 2, 2011)

Well again thanks. I know it needs a host. But maybe you can post another science lesson for me on how it is created in the first place and THEN finds a host and then replicates. I am sure somewhere there is evidence of Intelligent Design in a virus. I need help finding it though.

This is the first paragraph of the article:

"What Is a Virus

    A virus is microscopic living matter that relies on a host to reproduce and survive. The virus will cause physical effects that result in the diseases that affect us daily throughout the world. Since the makeup of a virus is so simple in its makeup, it must rely on host cells for the machinery needed to survive and reproduce."


----------



## bullethead (Sep 2, 2011)

Here is a fairly simple description From: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99415.htm

"Depending on the type of virus you're looking at you'll see many different ways of accomplishing the same goal -- reproduction. In very general terms, then, a virus will attach itself to an appropriate host cell and insert it's genetic code into the DNA of the host, which then goes thorough it's normal routine of reading through its own code to synthesize proteins and enzymes, and in the process inadvertently replicates the strand of viral DNA (or RNA, depending), which codes for its own proteins and concentrates within the cell. At some point, the cell will not be able to support that many viral particles within it's membrane, and it will die, releasing thousands of new viral particles into the environment to do the dirty deed all over again."

I wonder if it uses all 6 of it's genes to do all that?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 2, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   you're tipping your hand, Bullet.   The criteria for the minimum gene set was the "simplest, self-replicating" cell.  A virus isn't self-replicating.   It has to invade another cell to make more of itself.
> 
> You're welcome!!!



So a virus, which is considered non-living, "invades" a cell so it can replicate. How does it know to do that? How CAN it do that being it does not have the minimal gene set? Who made the Virus "able" to do those things?


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 3, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> What would it mean to you if they discover evidence of bacterial life having existed on Mars some time ago?



Possibly a new source to sand paper.


----------



## fishinbub (Sep 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Maybe they will find a Virus instead. Those pesky buggers are tenacious, take HIV Virus for example....it has SIX genes.



You missed the point. You can't get a virus without a host. In other words, good luck finding a virus on Mars...


----------



## fishinbub (Sep 11, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> What would it mean to you if they discover evidence of bacterial life having existed on Mars some time ago?



What would it mean to you if we found out the earth was really flat?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> You missed the point. You can't get a virus without a host. In other words, good luck finding a virus on Mars...



Really? Which was first the Virus or the Cell? What was the minimal gene set of the first cell? Were the very first cells more or less complex? Are modern cells that require a certain amount of genes to be considered "alive" evolved from much more simple cells into needing that minimum number over millions of years?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 11, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> What would it mean to you if we found out the earth was really flat?



It would mean to me that there is an immense misinformation system in place.


----------



## fishinbub (Sep 11, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> It would mean to me that there is an immense misinformation system in place.



So you would dismiss new evidence based on what you've always believed?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Really? Which was first the Virus or the Cell? What was the minimal gene set of the first cell? Were the very first cells more or less complex? Are modern cells that require a certain amount of genes to be considered "alive" evolved from much more simple cells into needing that minimum number over millions of years?



So, you're saying that the scientists' experiments to find the minimum gene set are a waste of time, since there really is no minimum?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> So, you're saying that the scientists' experiments to find the minimum gene set are a waste of time, since there really is no minimum?



I'm saying that for modern cells you and scientists are probably 100% correct for the minimum gene set. (Although our resident scientist may tell us that their methods are agenda driven and the results are not right...but anyway) Do the scientist know what the genes set was on cells from 10,000 years ago? One Million years ago? 4 billion years ago? They may have been much simpler  back then. They may not have "needed" as many as today. Today's cells are probably the latest version of cells that have adapted to what it takes for them to live now. They may have been very simple billions of years ago. They have been infected with viruses since the beginning and the viruses will adapt and the cells will adapt to the viruses and on and on and on with each version being a little stronger and requiring a bit more genes to survive.


So where did these Viruses come from anyway? A Creator? Were they created first and became cells?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I'm saying that for modern cells you and scientists are probably 100% correct for the minimum gene set. (Although our resident scientist may tell us that their methods are agenda driven and the results are not right...but anyway) Do the scientist know what the genes set was on cells from 10,000 years ago? One Million years ago? 4 billion years ago? They may have been much simpler  back then. They may not have "needed" as many as today. Today's cells are probably the latest version of cells that have adapted to what it takes for them to live now. They may have been very simple billions of years ago. They have been infected with viruses since the beginning and the viruses will adapt and the cells will adapt to the viruses and on and on and on with each version being a little stronger and requiring a bit more genes to survive.
> 
> 
> So where did these Viruses come from anyway? A Creator? Were they created first and became cells?



What you are referring to here are 'protocells'...a fancy word for something hypothetical...   like 'i' represents the square root of -1.   doesn't exist...but they call it something.    Since scientists absolutely believe that cells had to come together over time by chance, no matter what the minimum gene set to survive is, there MUST HAVE been some protocells....hypothetical 'simple cells' along the way.   

Pure conjecture...unscientific.

A virus could not have come about by itself.   It can only replicate by 'robbing' replication MACHINERY (sorry, that implies design) from another cell.    You really need to drop the virus issue....you're digging a whole if that's what you're leaning on for Origin of Life.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> What you are referring to here are 'protocells'...a fancy word for something hypothetical...   like 'i' represents the square root of -1.   doesn't exist...but they call it something.    Since scientists absolutely believe that cells had to come together over time by chance, no matter what the minimum gene set to survive is, there MUST HAVE been some protocells....hypothetical 'simple cells' along the way.
> 
> Pure conjecture...unscientific.
> 
> A virus could not have come about by itself.   It can only replicate by 'robbing' replication MACHINERY (sorry, that implies design) from another cell.    You really need to drop the virus issue....you're digging a whole if that's what you're leaning on for Origin of Life.



LOLOL, I am trying to learn.

A virus could not have come about by itself, So in every cell there is a virus just waiting to show?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

Bandy, don't leave me 'hangin.....I wanna learn about viruses, their origins, and how they know what to do and do what they do with so few genes.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

You're missing the point here, Bullet.   Without a more advanced organism already in place, a virus can't replicate.   It still points back to "where did that more advanced organism" come from....    

Say it with me.... "A virus is not self-replicating.  A virus is not self-replicating. A virus is not...."


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> You're missing the point here, Bullet.   Without a more advanced organism already in place, a virus can't replicate.   It still points back to "where did that more advanced organism" come from....
> 
> Say it with me.... "A virus is not self-replicating.  A virus is not self-replicating. A virus is not...."



I KNOW a virus cannot replicate without a host. Your missing the question: So where did the very first virus come from? And as a follow up, How much more advanced was the first cell it invaded?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I KNOW a virus cannot replicate without a host. Your missing the question: So where did the very first virus come from? And as a follow up, How much more advanced was the first cell it invaded?



lol    Since I believe in creation, I'd go with "created".      right along with other evils....skeeters, ticks, gnats, pathogenic bacteria, snakes, venom, etc.    

As to how much more advanced the first cell was....I'd say, "206 genes, minimum"   (Thanks for learnin' me that)


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    Since I believe in creation, I'd go with "created".      right along with other evils....skeeters, ticks, gnats, pathogenic bacteria, snakes, venom, etc.
> 
> As to how much more advanced the first cell was....I'd say, "206 genes, minimum"   (Thanks for learnin' me that)



So after the first cell was created to start off this great expansion of life a Virus was also created to find that first cell and destroy it? Kind of like making a self-destruct button. I wonder was the Virus put right into the cell or was it left to float around the air in hopes of finding the cell(talk about odds)?

Do any of "my" or "your" or "our" scientists have any idea of how many genes were in the first cells to inhabit the earth a few billion years ago?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> So after the first cell was created to start off this great expansion of life a Virus was also created to find that first cell and destroy it? Kind of like making a self-destruct button. I wonder was the Virus put right into the cell or was it left to float around the air in hopes of finding the cell(talk about odds)?
> 
> Do any of "my" or "your" or "our" scientists have any idea of how many genes were in the first cells to inhabit the earth a few billion years ago?



Bullet...Bullet....   You're building a straw man, here!   No creationist on this forum believes God would have created one single cell and then turned it loose!   LMBO!   I'm (as I'm sure most creationists on this forum) a biblical creationist.   You have to try to think along those lines.   God would have created all living things 'after their kind'.   Each kind from the start!   including viruses, bacteria, etc.    

Yes, scientists know how many.    There would have been a minimum of 206.   Something I forgot to add back when I presented the evidence for the 256 gene set was this....   The scientist who carved the bacterium's gene set down to 256 said that this hypothetical organism would have struggled to survive, if at all!    It would have had enormous problems living, as it wouldn't have been able to repair DNA damage, it couldn't break down complex compounds, etc.   

There was no protocell.    It's hypothesized.   To believe in such a cell is to blindly follow the evolutionary faith.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Bullet...Bullet....   You're building a straw man, here!   No creationist on this forum believes God would have created one single cell and then turned it loose!   LMBO!   I'm (as I'm sure most creationists on this forum) a biblical creationist.   You have to try to think along those lines.   God would have created all living things 'after their kind'.   Each kind from the start!   including viruses, bacteria, etc.
> 
> Yes, scientists know how many.    There would have been a minimum of 206.   Something I forgot to add back when I presented the evidence for the 256 gene set was this....   The scientist who carved the bacterium's gene set down to 256 said that this hypothetical organism would have struggled to survive, if at all!    It would have had enormous problems living, as it wouldn't have been able to repair DNA damage, it couldn't break down complex compounds, etc.
> 
> There was no protocell.    It's hypothesized.   To believe in such a cell is to blindly follow the evolutionary faith.



Your right, the creationists believe that God poofed every living creature into existence and they are all made up of individual cells. I "get it".

The problem I have is that I am trying to figure it out without using the Biblical Creation account. I don't buy it for one instance and deep down most believers can see that there evidence of creation life, but NOT as the Bible makes it out to be. Simply, life could have been created, but not as stated in the Bible.


So you are telling me "cell scientists" are spot on with their hypothesis but the scientists that age soil, bones, and trace back evolutionary traits just don't have what it takes to be right? C'mon!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> ... deep down most believers can see that there evidence of creation life, but NOT as the Bible makes it out to be. Simply, life could have been created, but not as stated in the Bible.



How can you say that?   What evidence do you have to make the blanket statement, "most believers....but not as the Bible makes it out to be"


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> How can you say that?   What evidence do you have to make the blanket statement, "most believers....but not as the Bible makes it out to be"



Just my thoughts/observations .


----------



## fishinbub (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Just my thoughts/observations .



Thoughts/observations make for very interesting discussion, but without evidence they cannot be used effectively to argue a point. There are thoughts/observations that support every side of every possible argument...


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Thoughts/observations make for very interesting discussion, but without evidence they cannot be used effectively to argue a point. There are thoughts/observations that support every side of every possible argument...



Insightful info 'bub. Probably the reason you never answered my earlier questions to you.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

I'll change my answer to:
"The majority of believers that I have had in depth conversations with"


----------



## fishinbub (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Insightful info 'bub. Probably the reason you never answered my earlier questions to you.



I answered the question before you posted it. A virus cannot reproduce without a host. Put 2 and 2 together...


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> I answered the question before you posted it. A virus cannot reproduce without a host. Put 2 and 2 together...



LOLOL. I know how it reproduces but HOW did a Virus form? Where did the first virus come from? Was it a spin off of the make-up of a cell? Was it created specifically to invade a cell? Were viruses around before cells just waiting for hosts?

The simple answers are easy, I'm trying to pick some brains here and see if anyone knows anything deeper into the process/origins.


----------



## fishinbub (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> LOLOL. I know how it reproduces but HOW did a Virus form? Where did the first virus come from? Was it a spin off of the make-up of a cell? Was it created specifically to invade a cell? Were viruses around before cells just waiting for hosts?
> 
> The simple answers are easy, I'm trying to pick some brains here and see if anyone knows anything deeper into the process/origins.



Viruses usually have a relatively short lifespan. I think even the most hardy don't last more than a few weeks. They rely on quickly reproducing to keep from dying out. Viruses would not live long without a host. I seriously doubt viruses could be alive before cells, "just waiting for a host". The origin of viruses and (especially) cells is unknown by the scientific world, simply because the creation of such a thing without first having "life" is a supernatural event. Based on what we know, it can't happen...


----------

