Comet landing: Organic molecules detected by Philae

originally posted by: Soapusmaximus
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

But the simple fact is, according to our understanding of evolution we are really struggling to explain how our brains capacity increased so quickly, there shouldn't have been enough time if we use other animals progression as a guide.

I believe this is the explanation:

Eating meat led to smaller stomachs, bigger brains

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

Trace amounts of gold, arsenic, lead, copper etc are found in our bodies so every element is "organic".

WHAT ????

For something to be organic it has to contain oxygen and carbon.

Those elements you have listed don't.

also hydrogen. but elements are not organic, it's when they are combined with hydrogen, oxygen, carbon in a molecule that they can be called organic

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The lead scientist already said the digging spoon came back empty. Which is why that MEDIA article seems off on that one point.

A key objective was to drill a sample of "soil" and analyse it in Cosac's oven. But, disappointingly, the latest information suggest no soil was delivered to the instrument.

And

The lander's Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer (APXS), designed to provide information on the elemental composition of the surface, seems to have partially seen a signal from its own lens cover - which could have dropped off at a strange angle because Philae was not lying flat.

So as I said in my post, no surface tests have been completed yet other than hitting it with a hammer. He even said they can't rule out that it's not made of rock yet.

a reply to: ronaldomoon

It's just another theory.

I am all for believing life developed somewhere on its own at the start . . . . . . . . . I just don't believe personally that it started here on Earth.

I do think comets could have been involved wherever it did start.

The only other theory I like is Terrance Mckenna's Stoned Ape Theory - It seems very plausible.

But the bottom line is there is proof of another intelligence operating on this planet, and taken with the myths of our creation and the lack of explanations of our jump to sentience I am inclined to believe all of the clues on offer.

Plenty of other animals ate and eat meat and we have no evidence of any other jump anywhere near ours.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The lead scientist already said the digging spoon came back empty. Which is why that MEDIA article seems off on that one point.

A key objective was to drill a sample of "soil" and analyse it in Cosac's oven. But, disappointingly, the latest information suggest no soil was delivered to the instrument.

And

The lander's Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer (APXS), designed to provide information on the elemental composition of the surface, seems to have partially seen a signal from its own lens cover - which could have dropped off at a strange angle because Philae was not lying flat.

So as I said in my post, no surface tests have been completed yet other than hitting it with a hammer. He even said they can't rule out that it's not made of rock yet.

Seriously, you clearly read the article yet skip this ...

Preliminary results from the Mupus instrument, which deployed a hammer to the comet after Philae's landing, suggest there is a layer of dust 10-20cm thick on the surface with very hard water-ice underneath.

It's like you want it to be wrong so bad you lie to yourself, and us.

“If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid ice,” says Tilman Spohn, principal investigator for MUPUS.

Looking at the results of the thermal mapper and the probe together, the team have made the preliminary assessment that the upper layers of the comet’s surface consist of dust of 10–20 cm thickness, overlaying mechanically strong ice or ice and dust mixtures.

blogs.esa.int...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm not lying to myself at all and I didn't miss anything...no surface tests have been completed other than hitting it with a hammer. You missed the part where they said the same tensile strength as sandstone...

The digger came back empty.

I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to accomplish, I'm just pointing out no real surface testing had been done and probably won't be until the lander is charged.

a reply to: raymundoko

No, you simply ignored the part where they said their test was indicative of solid ice. I am not the one lying. I posted the data was preliminary. I was open and forthcoming. You on the other hand were obtuse and desired to obfuscate the findings. Oh, and hitting it with a hammer is also an obfuscation, the tool in question does a lot more unless you think a thermal mapper is a hammer, and they took all the data and combined the readings to form a conclusion, there is a lot more data than simple hardness, you just want to ignore the rest.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm not ignoring anything, you're just super defensive. Again, all I'm saying is no conclusive surface testing has as of yet been completed.

The article even says they are going to have to fool around with mathematical models to determine the makeup if the ice since they didn't get any samples. Just calm down and wait for it to recharge there buddy.

Edit: Science is not completed via press releases. Again, the lead scientist:

"You can't rule out rock, but if you look at the global story, we know the overall density of the comet is 0.4g/cubic cm. There's no way the thing's made of rock.

"It's more likely there's sintered ice at the surface with more porous material lower down that hasn't been exposed to the Sun in the same way."

The supposition is being made as a very educated guess, and is probably accurate. However, NO CONCLUSIVE SURFACE TESTING has been completed. You've now called me a liar twice, when nothing I said is untrue...why the vitriolic, ad hominem attacks? What exactly would be the benefit of lying in this thread??

a reply to: raymundoko

The difference is that in my posts I said from the start this is all preliminary, but the data points to ice. You did everything possible to leave out every mention of the data that lends credence to the ice supposition, and then only included quotes that talk about rock. Then you LIE saying the only data they have is a hammer, which is completely false.

There are numerous data sets that all point to this being ice.

Here I will highlight why I have no trouble calling you a liar.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

When the article says it is xx amount of dust over an icy surface, that is actually based off of comet model theory, not any tests the lander has completed yet.

False, the claim is NOT based off of comet model theory, it's 100% based off of actual data collected about this comet.

originally posted by: raymundoko
So as I said in my post, no surface tests have been completed yet other than hitting it with a hammer. He even said they can't rule out that it's not made of rock yet.

What he said was the results are consistent with ice. Yet all you want to highlight is the faint possibility of rock and completely ignore that ice is much more likely.

originally posted by: raymundoko
I'm not lying to myself at all and I didn't miss anything...no surface tests have been completed other than hitting it with a hammer. You missed the part where they said the same tensile strength as sandstone...

Again with the selective reading. This is what he said.
"It's within a very broad spectrum of ice models. It was harder than expected at that location, but it's still within bounds," said Prof Mark McCaughrean, senior science adviser to Esa, told BBC News.

originally posted by: raymundoko
I'm not lying to myself at all and I didn't miss anything...no surface tests have been completed other than hitting it with a hammer. You missed the part where they said the same tensile strength as sandstone...

There are other tests done and you are again lying, what they said was the ICE layer has a tensile strength approaching sandstone, not the same as.

The nail on the coffin of your lies, where you said he claimed they are not ruling out rock and it may be made of rock ... This is his actual comment where you selectively dismissed the last part that does not agree with what you want to believe.

He explained: "You can't rule out rock, but if you look at the global story, we know the overall density of the comet is 0.4g/cubic cm. There's no way the thing's made of rock.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So basically I haven't lied at all and you're a very bitter person. Got it.

Let me ask you this: Why does he say you can't rule out rock? Where have I ever said it's probably rock? Why do you think I think it is rock? I think it is ice...again, since you can't read...NO comprehensive tests of the surface have been done. If comprehensive tests were completed we would absolutely know the make up of the ice on the surface.

You're just making yourself look bad. Let's wait for this thing to recharge. This isn't some UFO thread where you have to spew such negatively around. I'm not some uneducated person you can bully. Why you are even trying to be a bully is beyond me.

We have a pretty good working model of comets. All the data we've seen so far agrees with our working model so we equate what we see in the days to our model. Unfortunately we can't confirm that until it pulls a surface sample.

I quoted the scientist exactly, including the part you bolded. I did not ignore it. I just happen to know what the data I'm looking at means, you just know how to read a press release.

a reply to: raymundoko

No, maybe you should read again.

When the article says it is xx amount of dust over an icy surface, that is actually based off of comet model theory, not any tests the lander has completed yet.

Back that statement up.

He even said they can't rule out that it's not made of rock yet.

Actually what he said was "There's no way the thing's made of rock." You conveniently left that part out, why?

I bet about 4 billion years ago after cooling and stellar winds
the Earth contained it's very own organic compounds without need
of comets as delivery.
And don't even get me started on Oceans.
The Sun can supply it all.
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I didn't leave it out. It's in my post...but that's his opinion, one I happen to agree with...however science isn't confirmed with opinions.

We can't rule out rock until we get a sample.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I didn't leave it out. It's in my post...but that's his opinion, one I happen to agree with...however science isn't confirmed with opinions.

We can't rule out rock until we get a sample.

You did leave it out. This is all you said in your post.

He even said they can't rule out that it's not made of rock yet.

It was not until later, after I said you were lying by intentionally leaving stuff out and only posting parts of quotes that talk about rock that you included more. And you only did that after you edited your response.

You also said ...

You missed the part where they said the same tensile strength as sandstone

This intentionally leaves out the part of the quote that talks about the ICE approaching sandstone's tensile strength. You made it seem like they were saying it could possibly be sandstone or something similar, when in fact they never said that and they were only looking at scenarios where the layer is ice.

You intentionally left out parts of quotes to obfuscate the situation. That is lying, point blank.

Whereas I included the whole quotes that talk about this data being preliminary. Never once did I state the data is absolutely conclusive. I simply did not hide half the truth, why you did is beyond me.

You also lied when you said the article comment about ice was based solely on theory and models and not on data. It is solely based on data.

a reply to: raymundoko

Honestly I think you jumped the shark with your claim about the statements being solely based on theory and models, and not data, and then you tried to defend that position rather than admit you made a mistake. Your attempt to defend your earlier false post forced you down a narrow path. Next time I suggest you simply admit you were mistaken and there was data you did not know about.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm not mistaken. The data is being interpreted based on models. That's how the conclusions are being drawn. If the data wasn't being interpreted based on models statements like "we can't rule out rock" would not be made. You need to learn how the scientific method works.

You're trying to draw down your rhetoric now because I didn't bend over for you.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm not mistaken. The data is being interpreted based on models. That's how the conlusions are being drawn. If the data wasn't being interpreted based on models statements like "we can't rule out rock" would not be made. You need to learn how the scientific method works.

You're trying to draw down your rhetoric now because I didn't bend over for you.

How does the model have anything to do with the calculation that determined the weight of the comet? What does the model have to do with temperature readings? What does the model have to do with readings determining surface hardness?

I know exactly how the scientific method works and never went crazy claiming it must be ice. You are the one who ignored every mention of ice and cut off quotes so they only mentioned rock and you cut off the parts that make rock all but impossible.

It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, and it tastes like a duck, and I am claiming it's probably a duck ... but all you want to do is say there is no data supporting it's a duck (which is wrong) and it may turn out to be a decoy (which is possible, but extremely unlikely).

You need to know how science works, not me. I followed the data, and never once stated it was conclusive, I merely went where the current data (not theory) leads. You want to ignore the data and talk about what may be, and you go so far as to cut off quotes that show it's almost certainly ice.

Maybe you should tell the scientists who got the lander there that they don't understand the scientific method.

“If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid ice,” says Tilman Spohn, principal investigator for MUPUS.

He explained: "You can't rule out rock, but if you look at the global story, we know the overall density of the comet is 0.4g/cubic cm. There's no way the thing's made of rock.

Maybe you can tell me what rock has the density and tensile strength to match the data found?

I also did not tone anything down, I was trying to settle this and offer you a reasonable way out. I already pointed out where you absolutely lied by omission, I had no desire to continue to drill the message further.

When the article says it is xx amount of dust over an icy surface, that is actually based off of comet model theory, not any tests the lander has completed yet.

Since you chose to continue, can you show me the source for that?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I already quoted you where that same scientist said it was comparable sandstone...

That's why they are "fooling around" with mathematical models to figure out what the ice mixture needs to be for the surface to be as hard as it is.

I've also already explained my original comment too...

The data does not conclusively show ice. That extrapolation is based on comet models and how we interpret the data to line up with the models. If the data conclusively showed ice we would not see comments like "we can't rule out rock".

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I already quoted you where that same scientist said it was comparable sandstone...

That's why they are "fooling around" with mathematical models to figure out what the ice mixture needs to be for the surface to be as hard as it is.

You mean where you butchered the article and only quoted the half you liked? You know, the exact thing I keep blasting you for.

The ice would be frozen solid at temperatures encountered in the outer Solar System - Mupus data suggest this layer has a tensile strength similar to sandstone.

Can you show me the sandstone that would be .4g/cm3? You do realize Sandstone is about 6-7x more dense right? The data in no way indicates sandstone, it indicates ice that is harder than they thought it would be, but still in the normal range of ice hardness.

"It's within a very broad spectrum of ice models. It was harder than expected at that location, but it's still within bounds,"

So why do you keep only mentioning sandstone when the quote you use is actually talking about it being ice, and you simply cut off the parts you don't like?

The only issue I see with that statement is they actually haven't sampled the surface at all yet. When the article says it is xx amount of dust over an icy surface, that is actually based off of comet model theory, not any tests the lander has completed yet.

Again, why do you refuse to answer. Source your claim that this is all based on comet models and there is zero data being used for the claim. Why won't you source that?

originally posted by: raymundoko.

The data does not conclusively show ice. That extrapolation is based on comet models and how we interpret the data to line up with the models. If the data conclusively showed ice we would not see comments like "we can't rule out rock".

Never said it did, but it overwhelmingly points to ice, and the data DOES rule out any known rock. So we can not prove it is ice, but we can prove, and have proved, it's not any type of known rock. That is why .. yet again .. you do what you love to do and only use PART of the quote, the part you like, and you ignore the part you don't. Well here it is.

He explained: "You can't rule out rock, but if you look at the global story, we know the overall density of the comet is 0.4g/cubic cm. There's no way the thing's made of rock.

Why do you always leave that part out? We can't rule rock out because we have no definitive data and until we know exactly what it is, we can't 100% say it's not something else. But, for it to be rock, it would have to be some sort of rock unlike any other rock ever discovered which is not even theorized. But all you want to do is talk about it being rock, even though it's almost impossible.