Directed Panspermia: factoring the probabilities

[pnyikos]

For many months now, in order to counteract the hearsay that I am
convinced earth life is due to directed panspermia (DP), I have posted
my personal opinion that the odds in favor of the DP hypothesis are
between 3 to 1 and 30 to 1. In this thread, for the first time, I
will give a detailed breakdown of all my estimates that are related to
this opinion.

To begin with, I freely acknowledge that others might come up with
very different estimates. But I feel *very* comfortable arguing for
the very modest estimate of a 5% probability that earth life is due to
DP -- still enough to make it worthy of serious thought.

At the opposite extreme, I challenge anyone reading my next three
posts to this thread to make a convincing case for the odds *for*
directed panspermia being any less than 4,600 to 1.

These numbers are derived from multiplying a large number of factors.
For each one, I take a number I am *very* comfortable defending, and
another number that I challenge others with as above.

As you can see, my personal opinion occupies a narrow band near the
middle of the above range, logarithmically speaking. 3 to 1 is more
than 50 times as good as 5%, while 4,600 to 1 is over 150 times as
great as 30 to 1. But I don't intend to argue for my personal opinion.

[pnyikos]

One of the key ingredients in the discussion of the probability of DP
is:

E = the expected number of planets that a technological civilization
on our level will seed with efficient self-replicators. [These would
be not much less sophisticated than our prokaryotes, and sometimes
more sophisticated.]

In the ongoing thread, "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections EAB",

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/54913f700c6588ce/bf6e20ddfd9fa137

There, I break this down into

E = E = d_1 * d_2 * f_i * f_c * P where factors f_i and f_c are taken
from the Drake equation, with the following specific definitions:

f_i = The fraction of planets on which life has reached the efficient
replicator level on which intelligent
life emerges.

f_c = The fraction of planets with intelligent species that develop a
technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into
space.

The other factors are:

d_1: the fraction of civilizations attaining to our level of
technology going on to send probes to enough other planetary systems
to ascertain whether life is commonplace in our galaxy, or that theirs
is a unique planet in that respect.

d_2: the fraction of civilizations as described above, undertaking an
extended directed panspermia project.

[I originally wrote "a massive" instead of "an extended." By the
latter, I mean a project lasting many millennia.]

P = expected number of successful panspermia attempts by a race with
an extensive panspermia project.

Below, the first column gives the probabilities for each factor that I
feel *very* comfortable defending, while the second is a number with
which I challenge anyone reading this to give a convincing reason why
the number should be lower.

Comfort Challenge

d_1 0.2 0.5
d_2 0.2 0.5
f_i 2.88*10^-5 2.33*10^-2
f_c 0.5 0.8
P 10^5 10^6

E 5.76*10^-2 4.66*10^3
or 5.76% = 4,660

Readers may be surprised by the huge range in f_i. It comes from f_i
in turn being broken down into six factors, with a "comfort" and
"challenge" number associated with each, and the numbers for each
category being multiplied together.

The high numbers for P depend very much on the hypothesis that
abiogenesis resulting in prokaryote-level organisms is a once-in-a-
galaxy or less occurrence. I am *very* comfortable with defending this
hypothesis. Were the hypothesis false, I might abandon my support for
the DP hypothesis, depending on the ease of abiogenesis leading to
life as we know it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[pnyikos]

On Apr 16, 3:27�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> One of the key ingredients in the discussion of the probability of DP
> is:
>
> E = the expected number of planets that a technological civilization
> on our level will seed with efficient self-replicators. �[These would
> be not much less sophisticated than our prokaryotes, and sometimes
> more sophisticated.]
>
> In the ongoing thread, "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections EAB",
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/5491...

>
> There, I break this down into
>
> E = E = d_1 * d_2 �* f_i * f_c * P

and now I break f_i down into six factors, which account for the huge
difference between the value of f_i that I feel *very* comfortable
defending, and a number withwhich I challenge anyone reading this to

give a convincing reason why the number should be lower.
>
> � � � � Comfort � � � � � Challenge

> f_i � � 2.88*10^-5 � � � 2.33*10^-2

The factorization:
f_i = e_1 * e_2 * e_3 * e_4 * e_5 * e_6

where each e_j is the fraction of planets with organisms
at Stage j going on to evolve organisms at Stage j+1.
The stages involved are represented by the following
organisms:

Stage 1: prokaryotes (bacteria, archae)

Stage 2: sexually reproducing eukaryotes

Stage 3: metazoans

Stage 4: lower chordates, mollusks, arthropods

Stage 5: primitive tetrapods

Stage 6: prosimians, *Saurornithoides*, raccoons

Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*

And here are my two kinds of estimates for e_j for each value of j:

Comfort Challenge

e_1 0.04 0.3
e_2 0.05 0.3
e_3 0.3 0.8
e_4 0.2 0.4
e_5 0.6 0.9
e_6 0.4 0.8

Multiplying and rounding to three "significant" digits gives:

f_i 2.88*10^-5 2.33*10^-2

When these in turn are multiplied by the other factors involved (see
the preceding post) I get:

> E � �5.76*10^-2 � � � � 4.66*10^3
> � � � or �5.76% � � � � � = 4,660

One of the other factors was:

P = expected number of successful panspermia attempts by a race with

an extensive panspermia project. Comfort, 10^5; Challenge, 10^6.

> The high numbers for P depend very much on the hypothesis that
> abiogenesis resulting in prokaryote-level organisms is a once-in-a-
> galaxy or less occurrence. I am *very* comfortable with defending this
> hypothesis.

In fact, I am defending this hypothesis today on another thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1304ddcf52004ad/166eb847d28823c9

The effect of this hypothesis on the DP hypothesis was hinted at by
Crick and Orgel in their original paper on DP:

The hypothetical senders on another planet
may have been able to prove that they were
likely to be alone, and to remain so, or they
may have reached this conclusion mistakenly.
In either case, if they resembled us
psychologically, their motivation for polluting
the galaxy would be strong, if they believed
that all or even the great majority of
inhabitable planets could be given life by
Directed Panspermia.
-- Icarus 19 (1973) 341-346
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf


Granted the "may have been able to prove..." part, the "if they
believed" bit is just a question of them having attained to our level
of technology, and their access to hardy prokaryotes or close
evolutionary precursors.

"if they resembled us psychologically" is somewhat misleadingly
worded. All it takes is for them to decide that for a planet to have
life is far better than for it not to have life.

>Were the hypothesis false, I might abandon my support for
> the DP hypothesis, depending on the ease of abiogenesis leading to
> life as we know it.

Crick and Orgel touched on this too, shortly before the above quote:

It seems unlikely that we would deliberately
send terrestrial organisms to planets
that we believed might already be inhabited.
However, in view of the precarious situation
on Earth, we might well be tempted to infect
other planets if we became convinced that
we were alone in the galaxy (Universe).

[pnyikos]

Just in case some people reading this thread are encountering the term
"directed panspermia" for the first time, I'm quoting from the first
question in the draft for a FAQ on the subject:

A1. What is directed panspermia?

REPLY:It is the theory that was introduced by Nobel Laureate
biochemist
Francis Crick and another distinguished biochemist, Leslie Orgel. As
they put it, it is

"the theory that organisms were deliberately
transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings
on another planet."

-- Icarus 19 (1973) 341-346
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf

Drafts of Section A and Sections B and E can be found in the first 20
posts of the following thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/6dc598aeffb4708f/f25f4e2fcd38a36d

Drafts of Sections C and D can be found in the following thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/6dc598aeffb4708f/f25f4e2fcd38a36d

Section C is in two installments in the first twenty posts of that
thread. Section D came later, in three installments:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9cb2a04749b317c7

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d3467b7189a9336a

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3dd6a28d2665112b

It was in Section E that I gave the various stages used in defining
the factors of f_i:

f_i = e_1 �* �e_2 �* �e_3 �* �e_4 �* e_5 * �e_6

where each e_j is the fraction of planets with organisms at Stage j
going on to evolve organisms at Stage j+1.

Here are the descriptions of the stages, followed by notes on most of
them:

Stage 1: Efficient replicators and metabolizers.

Stage 2: Organisms with organelles, a large genome, and sexual
reproduction in at least part of the life cycle.

Stage 3: Well integrated and differentiated multicellular organisms
which are actively motile in at least part of the life cycle, with
lots of scope for variation.

Stage 4: Well developed nervous system and either internal or external
"skeleton" suitable for advance to the next stage.

Stage 5: Ability to take in oxygen (or a very few alternatives) from
the air; skeleton sufficiently strong to enable the animal to move
freely on the land during some stage of its life cycle; sense organs
suitable for forming an integrated perception of the surroundings.

Stage 6: Well developed brain; extended care of young; ability to
manipulate objects.

Stage 7: Sophisticated language suitable for expressing events and
abstract concepts; social organization; ability to make a wide variety
of tools for various purposes.

Re Stage 1: DNA is not an efficient replicator all by itself, nor is
RNA; these
require enzymes to replicate at a reasonable rate, but these enzymes
in turn need to be produced with the help of other enzymes or copies
of themselves. In "life as we know it" they are coded into the DNA
and, more immediately, into mRNA. On other worlds, they might be
ribozymes, but there should be an overall genome which functions as a
unit, such as our DNA.

Re Stage 2: Plants have alternation of generations, with one
generation asexually reproducing. Sexual reproduction could take the
form of extensive conjugation as in *Paramecium*.

Re Stage 3: The following do NOT qualify: plants, fungi, slime molds,
sponges, mesozoans. [Cellular slime molds do have a well integrated
multicellular motile stage, but it is not differentiated into organs.
Mesozoans have a set number of cells per adult individual and so are
an evolutionary dead end.

Re Stage 4: The lancelet (*Branchiostoma*, a.k.a. amphioxus) is the
canonical internal-skeleton example; various arthopods and perhaps
some mollusks (chitons) are external-skeleton examples.

Re Stage 6: Carl Sagan,in _The Dragons of Eden_, makes a case for
*Saurornithoides* (identified with *Troodon* by some) being at this
stage.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Apr 17, 5:27 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> One of the key ingredients in the discussion of the probability of DP
> is:

Meh.

So how many angels do you reckon could dance on the head of a pin?

Forget Strauss Waltzes, I'm interested in break-dancing Angels. Oh,
and it's a homework project, so please don't spoon-feed me a bare
answer, I need to see how you work it out.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Apr 17, 4:11�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> For many months now, in order to counteract the hearsay that I am
> convinced earth life is due to directed panspermia (DP), I have posted
> my personal opinion that the odds in favor of the DP hypothesis are
> between 3 to 1 and 30 to 1.

You mean you entertain the idea that it's 30 times more likely to have
been DP than to have been earthbound abiogenesis?

Really??

Scientologe much?

[Paul J Gans]

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>For many months now, in order to counteract the hearsay that I am
>convinced earth life is due to directed panspermia (DP), I have posted
>my personal opinion that the odds in favor of the DP hypothesis are
>between 3 to 1 and 30 to 1. In this thread, for the first time, I
>will give a detailed breakdown of all my estimates that are related to
>this opinion.

>To begin with, I freely acknowledge that others might come up with
>very different estimates. But I feel *very* comfortable arguing for
>the very modest estimate of a 5% probability that earth life is due to
>DP -- still enough to make it worthy of serious thought.

It is curious. Nobody here that I know of ever said that
panspermia was impossible. The problem was that nobody
thought that arguing over uncertain if not unknowable
probabilities was worth the time or trouble.

Given that nobody ever argued over your basic proposal,
can we declare the panspermia thread finished?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[William Morse]

To the best of my knowledge, you cannot do statistics with a sample size
of one. Yes panspermia is a possibility for the origin of life on earth,
but it does not solve the problem of the origin of life. Now I do not
think you can assign a probability to it, and since it doesn't add to
the science I fail to see the point. Suppose I agree that life on earth
is due to panspermia - what is your scientific explanation for the
origin of life?

[Friar Broccoli]

What a killjoy! How horrible it must be to look up every night into the
heavens and fail to see all the flying pigs coming in out of orbit.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[pnyikos]

Argument from incredulity fallacy.

Yessir, folks, the shoe is on the other foot. Usually y'all get to
use this line against those who deny that "Mother Earth did it
(abiogenesis) easily."

Peter Nyikos

Peter Nyikos

[Harry K]

Hush!! It is not nice to point that out.

Harry K

[pnyikos]

On Apr 16, 6:45嚙緘m, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >For many months now, in order to counteract the hearsay that I am
> >convinced earth life is due to directed panspermia (DP), I have posted
> >my personal opinion that the odds in favor of the DP hypothesis are

> >between 3 to 1 and 30 to 1. 嚙瘢n this thread, for the first time, I

> >will give a detailed breakdown of all my estimates that are related to
> >this opinion.
> >To begin with, I freely acknowledge that others might come up with

> >very different estimates. 嚙畿ut I feel *very* comfortable arguing for

> >the very modest estimate of a 5% probability that earth life is due to
> >DP -- still enough to make it worthy of serious thought.
>

> It is curious. 嚙瞇obody here that I know of ever said that
> panspermia was impossible.

Some time this month, perhaps today, jillery said it was no more
likely than the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

Now don't tell me you've forgotten who jillery is.

> 嚙確he problem was that nobody

> thought that arguing over uncertain if not unknowable
> probabilities was worth the time or trouble.

The problem is that you are wrong.

> Given that nobody ever argued over your basic proposal,
> can we declare the panspermia thread finished?

I've done even better: back in August, shortly after you ended your
one-and-a-half year boycott of me, I declared you the winner of a
"complete Humean victory," alluding to Hume's famous words,

"A total suspense of judgment is here
our only reasonable resource.
And if every attack, as is commonly observed,
and no defence ... is successful;
how complete must be *his* victory, who remains
always, with all mankind, on the offensive,
and has himself no fixed station or abiding city,
which he is ever, on any occasion, obliged to defend?"
http://students.english.ilstu.edu/flknowl/flk2/mrdialog.htm


You can reflect on the following verse while basking in your Hume-
styled "complete victory."


"And everybody praised the Gans
Who this great fight did win."
"But what good came of it at last?"
Quoth little Peterkin.
"Why, that I cannot tell," said he,
"But 'twas a famous victory."
--taken, with one word changed,
from Southey's poem,
"The Battle of Blenheim"
http://www.poetry-archive.com/s/the_battle_of_blenheim.html


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

Yeppers. It would be a Good Idea (c) to abort this reboot of a
deformed concept.

[pnyikos]

On Apr 16, 10:44�pm, William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 04/16/2013 02:11 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
> > For many months now, in order to counteract the hearsay that I am
> > convinced earth life is due to directed panspermia (DP), I have posted
> > my personal opinion that the odds in favor of the DP hypothesis are
> > between 3 to 1 and 30 to 1. �In this thread, for the first time, I
> > will give a detailed breakdown of all my estimates that are related to
> > this opinion.
>
> > To begin with, I freely acknowledge that others might come up with
> > very different estimates. �But I feel *very* comfortable arguing for
> > the very modest estimate of a 5% probability that earth life is due to
> > DP -- still enough to make it worthy of serious thought.
>
> > At the opposite extreme, I challenge anyone reading my next three
> > posts to this thread to make a convincing case for the odds *for*
> > directed panspermia being any less than 4,600 to 1.
>
> > These numbers are derived from multiplying a large number of factors.
> > For each one, I take a number I am *very* comfortable defending, and
> > another number that I challenge others with as above.
>
> > As you can see, my personal opinion occupies a narrow band near the
> > middle of the above range, logarithmically speaking. �3 to 1 is more
> > than 50 times as good as 5%, while 4,600 to 1 is over 150 times as
> > great as 30 to 1. �But I don't intend to argue for my personal opinion.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, you cannot do statistics with a sample size
> of one.

This is not *a posteriori* statistics that we are engaged in, any more
than Drake and his colleagues were when Drake came up with his famous
equation.

> Yes panspermia is a possibility for the origin of life on earth,
> but it does not solve the problem of the origin of life.

It never was meant to do that, any more than the neo-Darwinian
synthesis was meant to do it.

> Now I do not
> think you can assign a probability to it, and since it doesn't add to
> the science I fail to see the point. Suppose I agree that life on earth
> is due to panspermia - what is your scientific explanation for the
> origin of life?

IMHO, on one planet in our galaxy -- perhaps the universe --
though not necessarily earth -- the superastronomical odds
against the production of all the enzymes that make for life
as we know it were overcome.

It's sort of like the stock
example of all the air in the room collecting in one tiny corner if
enough eons pass, simply because of the principle that "given enough
time, anything that can happen, will happen".

In this case, though, it is more like, "given enough universes like
this one, anything that can happen will take place at some point in
one of them." And, of course, that includes abiogenesis producing

life as we know it.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

Or the flying spaghetti monster. Thank you for helping me make my
point to the ever-supercilious Paul Gans.

Peter Nyikos

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Apr 16, 3:27�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> One of the key ingredients in the discussion of the probability of DP
> is:
>
> E = the expected number of planets that a technological civilization
> on our level will seed with efficient self-replicators. �[These would
> be not much less sophisticated than our prokaryotes, and sometimes
> more sophisticated.]
>
> In the ongoing thread, "FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections EAB",
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/5491...

> University of South Carolinahttp://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
> nyikos @ math.sc.edu

I'm interested in how you arrived at your figure for f_c? I can't, for
instance, imagine half of all planets with intelligent creatures
having iron, manganese and/or copper, etc., ores in the right places,
depths and concentrations, and some coal and/or wood equivalent that
can be converted into carbon or some other reducing material in an
appropriate form?

In addition, you need a theory of how civilizations rise. Remember,
illiterate societies, based on minimal trade, apparently can last
indefinitely. How many planets have the right geographical and
geological make up, the right weather, correct foliage, appropriate
domestic animals, seas and river systems that allow long-distance
trade. "Wood" surrogate that can be fashioned into wheels.

There are sound economic reasons technologically and culturally
progressive civilizations have only arisen on in one manner: Earth
Regularly-flooding river systems - or whatever's appropriate for the
local agriculture - conducive to massive trade and creation of wealth,
and being sufficiently narrow that the culture's economic rent - it's
productive surplus - can be captured by a local urban ruling classes,
which, let's face it, it the basis of early civilizations.

Mitchell Coffey

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:52:53 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Apr 16, 6:45嚙緘m, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >For many months now, in order to counteract the hearsay that I am
>> >convinced earth life is due to directed panspermia (DP), I have posted
>> >my personal opinion that the odds in favor of the DP hypothesis are
>> >between 3 to 1 and 30 to 1. 嚙瘢n this thread, for the first time, I
>> >will give a detailed breakdown of all my estimates that are related to
>> >this opinion.
>> >To begin with, I freely acknowledge that others might come up with
>> >very different estimates. 嚙畿ut I feel *very* comfortable arguing for
>> >the very modest estimate of a 5% probability that earth life is due to
>> >DP -- still enough to make it worthy of serious thought.
>>
>> It is curious. 嚙瞇obody here that I know of ever said that
>> panspermia was impossible.
>
>Some time this month, perhaps today, jillery said it was no more
>likely than the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
>
>Now don't tell me you've forgotten who jillery is.

You take my words out of context. It is what you do. That statement
is in response to your assertion that nobody has disproved DP. By
analogy, nobody has disproved a flying spaghetti monster either, so
your assertion is meaningless.

Why is it that someone as smart as you claim to be has to have these
things explained to him?

[jillery]

You're still not showing your work. What is the basis for your claim
of "superastronomical odds"?

[Burkhard]

The way of science this is not, young grasshopper. Don;t just watch
the flying pigs, track their path to their watering grounds and study
their feeding, hunting and procreation cycles. That way, you can
predict where most of their young will gather, which you can then
round up and make into novelty BLT sandwiches - there ought to be
potential for big airline buy ins for their inflight catering, if only
for advertising purposes. I love the smell of bacon in the morning it
smells of..serous money.

Of course, in the long run you might want to breed them so that the
wings get too small to support actual flight, which makes your
operating easier all round, and the meat softer, which is good for the
geriatric market. Just remember to take out appropriate protection of
your IP in the new breed.

[Harry K]

On Apr 16, 8:52�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Apr 16, 6:45�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >For many months now, in order to counteract the hearsay that I am
> > >convinced earth life is due to directed panspermia (DP), I have posted
> > >my personal opinion that the odds in favor of the DP hypothesis are

> > >between 3 to 1 and 30 to 1. �In this thread, for the first time, I

> > >will give a detailed breakdown of all my estimates that are related to
> > >this opinion.
> > >To begin with, I freely acknowledge that others might come up with

> > >very different estimates. �But I feel *very* comfortable arguing for

> > >the very modest estimate of a 5% probability that earth life is due to
> > >DP -- still enough to make it worthy of serious thought.
>

> > It is curious. �Nobody here that I know of ever said that

> > panspermia was impossible.
>
> Some time this month, perhaps today, jillery said it was no more
> likely than the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
>
> Now don't tell me you've forgotten who jillery is.
>

<snip>

So in your undeerstanding "no more likely" = "impossible"? Strange
twist of language.

Harry K

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

> So in your understanding "no more likely" = "impossible"? � Strange
> twist of language.

Here you are caught in the act of being in fully bad faith: the
sentence "it was no more likely than the existence of the flying
spaghetti monster" means clearly that its probability is zero.
Sorry but this is not fair from your part.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:11:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

After reading your three summation posts in this new thread,
I feel the question I've asked you (fruitlessly) several
times over the past few weeks in other threads has finally
been answered, as summarized below:

Q. "Where did the values come from on which you based your
calculated probabilities of DP, given that we have exactly
zero actual data?"

A. "I made them up, based on my personal beliefs."

No problem, but I'd suggest you stop calling your numbers
"probabilities", whether 1 in 3 or 1 in 30; probabilities
(in the math sense) require data, and you have no data.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[pnyikos]

A good place to start looking is the discussions I've had in the past
on the protein takeover, especially this one:

Subject: Re: The protein takeover -- a challenge for abiogenesis

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/b7969d55ebf5d18b/50e6e33a42bda4c9?#50e6e33a42bda4c9

In the thread, "Abiogenesis: Where is the model?"
I gave a quote from a reply to Harshman near the beginning of that
thread.

This was the reply in which I coined the term "Exaptor of the Gaps."
Here is the url for that reply:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f4b4bc2c61d8cb85

Unfortunately, we are in the throes of the "end of semester crunch"
here at U of SCarolina, and it'll be a while before I can give the
subject the attention it deserves.

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:07:44 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

Yeppers. Let's see how he disproves the existence of a flying
spaghetti monster.

[pnyikos]

Not if one means "impossible for all practical purposes." And that's
what the real issue is here--why argue for something nobody has voiced
extreme skepticism of?

If you think you can spot a flying spaghetti monster by looking
unceasingly out your window, be sure someone brings you food and drink
and NoDoz pills and a potty from time to time. :-)

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 17, 1:58�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:11:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

I'm not talking in the applied math sense as far as present day data
are concerned. I am taking the long view of what is knowable *in
principle*, and making guesses about it.

If we ever get to the point described in d_1, we may be in an
excellent position to make a lot of these estimations.

d_1: the fraction of civilizations attaining to our level of
technology going on to send probes to enough other planetary
systems to ascertain whether life is commonplace in our galaxy,

or whether theirs is a unique planet in that respect.

Here I had the panspermists in mind. We might be confronted with a
third alternative: coming across a few planets that the panspermists
seeded.

But only a few, because in the intervening billions of years, those
planets may be pretty evenly spread out through at least the spiral
arms of the galaxy. Originally, they would have been concentrated in
the 1000 or so light year radius centered on the panspermists' home
planet.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:31:14 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

>On Apr 17, 5:07�ｿｽpm, Harry K <turn...@q.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 8:52�ｿｽpm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> > On Apr 16, 6:45�ｿｽpm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > >For many months now, in order to counteract the hearsay that I am
>> > > >convinced earth life is due to directed panspermia (DP), I have posted
>> > > >my personal opinion that the odds in favor of the DP hypothesis are

>> > > >between 3 to 1 and 30 to 1. �ｿｽIn this thread, for the first time, I

>> > > >will give a detailed breakdown of all my estimates that are related to
>> > > >this opinion.
>> > > >To begin with, I freely acknowledge that others might come up with

>> > > >very different estimates. �ｿｽBut I feel *very* comfortable arguing for

>> > > >the very modest estimate of a 5% probability that earth life is due to
>> > > >DP -- still enough to make it worthy of serious thought.

>> > > It is curious. �ｿｽNobody here that I know of ever said that

>> > > panspermia was impossible.
>> > Some time this month, perhaps today, jillery said it was no more
>> > likely than the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
>> > Now don't tell me you've forgotten who jillery is.

>> So in your understanding "no more likely" = "impossible"? �ｿｽ Strange

>> twist of language.
>
>Here you are caught in the act of being in fully bad faith: the
>sentence "it was no more likely than the existence of the flying
>spaghetti monster" means clearly that its probability is zero.
>Sorry but this is not fair from your part.

Unless you can disprove the existence of a flying spaghetti monster,
you have no basis for assuming the probability is zero. Your
assertion notwithstanding, the statement in question means clearly
that it's unprovable.

[jillery]

That is not the issue. The real issue is the context of your
statement to which I replied.

>If you think you can spot a flying spaghetti monster by looking
>unceasingly out your window, be sure someone brings you food and drink
>and NoDoz pills and a potty from time to time. :-)

Non sequitur. Your challenge is to prove it does *not* exist.

[jillery]

Nothing here which explains the basis for your "astronomical odds"

> In the thread, "Abiogenesis: Where is the model?"
> I gave a quote from a reply to Harshman near the beginning of that
>thread.
>
>This was the reply in which I coined the term "Exaptor of the Gaps."
>Here is the url for that reply:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/f4b4bc2c61d8cb85

Nothing here which explains the basis for your "astronomical odds"

You cite old posts which have no evidence. If you follow your old
habits, you will next insist the evidence is there and blame me for
failing to recognize it, and then refuse to actually quote the
evidence you claim is there. This is what you do.

>Unfortunately, we are in the throes of the "end of semester crunch"
>here at U of SCarolina, and it'll be a while before I can give the
>subject the attention it deserves.

You would have more time if you didn't spend so much time posting
noise.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/16/13 12:27 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> One of the key ingredients in the discussion of the probability of DP
> is:

> [...]

>
> f_i = The fraction of planets on which life has reached the efficient
> replicator level on which intelligent
> life emerges.
>
> f_c = The fraction of planets with intelligent species that develop a
> technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into
> space.
>
> The other factors are:
>

> d_1: the fraction of civilizations attaining to our level of
> technology going on to send probes to enough other planetary systems

> to ascertain whether life is commonplace in our galaxy, or that theirs

> is a unique planet in that respect.
>

> d_2: the fraction of civilizations as described above, undertaking an
> extended directed panspermia project.
>
> [I originally wrote "a massive" instead of "an extended." By the
> latter, I mean a project lasting many millennia.]
>
> P = expected number of successful panspermia attempts by a race with
> an extensive panspermia project.
>
> Below, the first column gives the probabilities for each factor that I
> feel *very* comfortable defending, while the second is a number with
> which I challenge anyone reading this to give a convincing reason why
> the number should be lower.
>
> Comfort Challenge
>
> d_1 0.2 0.5
> d_2 0.2 0.5
> f_i 2.88*10^-5 2.33*10^-2
> f_c 0.5 0.8
> P 10^5 10^6
>
> E 5.76*10^-2 4.66*10^3
> or 5.76% = 4,660

> [...]

Many months ago, I explained why d_2 would be very close to zero:
Directed panspermia does not make sense economically, the beings who
would be doing it are, presumably, evolved creatures, and evolution is
all about economics. That reason has not been altered by anything since.

Regarding the other numbers, you still make the mistake of giving a
single value, implying you know enough to set a value. Start with the
obvious: the probabilities are between 0 and 1. Having seen some other
planets and not seen evidence of intelligence, much less life, on them,
we can lower the upper bound somewhat, but as yet we have absolutely no
evidence to raise the lower bound.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Paul J Gans]

Peter's reply came through just before your posting. I wish
those who desire to tar everyone with equal layers of it would
read my post, your post, and Peter's response.

[Paul J Gans]

Harry K <tur...@q.com> wrote:
>On Apr 16, 8:52?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> On Apr 16, 6:45?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > >For many months now, in order to counteract the hearsay that I am
>> > >convinced earth life is due to directed panspermia (DP), I have posted
>> > >my personal opinion that the odds in favor of the DP hypothesis are

>> > >between 3 to 1 and 30 to 1. ?In this thread, for the first time, I

>> > >will give a detailed breakdown of all my estimates that are related to
>> > >this opinion.
>> > >To begin with, I freely acknowledge that others might come up with

>> > >very different estimates. ?But I feel *very* comfortable arguing for

>> > >the very modest estimate of a 5% probability that earth life is due to
>> > >DP -- still enough to make it worthy of serious thought.
>>

>> > It is curious. ?Nobody here that I know of ever said that

>> > panspermia was impossible.
>>
>> Some time this month, perhaps today, jillery said it was no more
>> likely than the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
>>
>> Now don't tell me you've forgotten who jillery is.
>>

><snip>

>So in your undeerstanding "no more likely" = "impossible"? Strange
>twist of language.

Except that Jillery did not say that. It is exactly this
sort of behavior that led Ron O. to conclude that Peter was
a liar.

[Paul J Gans]

marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>On Apr 17, 5:07?pm, Harry K <turn...@q.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 8:52?pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> > On Apr 16, 6:45?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > >For many months now, in order to counteract the hearsay that I am
>> > > >convinced earth life is due to directed panspermia (DP), I have posted
>> > > >my personal opinion that the odds in favor of the DP hypothesis are

>> > > >between 3 to 1 and 30 to 1. ?In this thread, for the first time, I

>> > > >will give a detailed breakdown of all my estimates that are related to
>> > > >this opinion.
>> > > >To begin with, I freely acknowledge that others might come up with

>> > > >very different estimates. ?But I feel *very* comfortable arguing for

>> > > >the very modest estimate of a 5% probability that earth life is due to
>> > > >DP -- still enough to make it worthy of serious thought.

>> > > It is curious. ?Nobody here that I know of ever said that

>> > > panspermia was impossible.
>> > Some time this month, perhaps today, jillery said it was no more
>> > likely than the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
>> > Now don't tell me you've forgotten who jillery is.

>> So in your understanding "no more likely" = "impossible"? ? Strange

>> twist of language.

>Here you are caught in the act of being in fully bad faith: the
>sentence "it was no more likely than the existence of the flying
>spaghetti monster" means clearly that its probability is zero.
>Sorry but this is not fair from your part.

Except that Jillery did not say that in anything like the context
given above. Are you starting to understand how all this works?

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kkni54$1rb$9...@reader1.panix.com...

Peter makes claims Jillery said "it was no more likely than the existence of the flying
spaghetti monster", you claim she didn't, Jillery did not deny saying that:

"You take my words out of context. It is what you do. That statement
is in response to your assertion that nobody has disproved DP."

Yet this is not reason for considering "that statement" was taken out of context
and misleading.

Consider:
Peter: "Nobody has disproved DP."
Jillery: " [DP] is no more likely than the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

Neither you, Jillery or Peter supported these claims. Nor have I.
All you said above was "Jillery did not say that in anything like the context given above."

Is that how "all this" works?

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:08:18 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

Me too, but wishes don't work.

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:27:00 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

Yeppers.

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:21:59 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

Harry can correct me if I'm wrong, but IIUC he agrees with you.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:evmum8pt4973e7hhh...@4ax.com...

Did you or not say that Panspermia or DP is no more likely than the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

[Harry K]

I think you meant that as a reply to Nyikos.

Harry K

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

Of course you are joking.

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:30:22 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

You have been corrected about your misunderstanding several times by
several posters. Why are you persisting with your erroneous argument?

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Apr 18, 9:50�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:30:22 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr

Glenn and I would be grateful if you could answer Glenn's clear and
simple question: "Did you or not say that Panspermia or DP is no more
likely than the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?".

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:06:06 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

Exactly; these are *guesses*, and are based on exactly *no*
actual data. Which is why I made the suggestion above.

>If we ever get to the point described in d_1, we may be in an
>excellent position to make a lot of these estimations.

At that point we'll have the hard data regarding every
previous term, else we wouldn't know how many civilizations
existed, much less how many of them had reached our level of
technology (and beyond; we certainly don't yet have the
technology to initiate interstellar seeding programs). So
yes, once we've mapped the civilizations in the galaxy (if
any besides ours) we can do some estimation. I fail to see
how this supports your position, since we currently don't
even have the data regarding the number of potentially
Earthlike planets.

>d_1: the fraction of civilizations attaining to our level of
>technology going on to send probes to enough other planetary
>systems to ascertain whether life is commonplace in our galaxy,
>or whether theirs is a unique planet in that respect.
>
>Here I had the panspermists in mind. We might be confronted with a
>third alternative: coming across a few planets that the panspermists
>seeded.
>
>But only a few, because in the intervening billions of years, those
>planets may be pretty evenly spread out through at least the spiral
>arms of the galaxy. Originally, they would have been concentrated in
>the 1000 or so light year radius centered on the panspermists' home
>planet.

Since there is exactly zero evidence for the existence, not
to mention the possible actions, of potential panspermists,
past or present, you're getting a bit ahead of yourself, and
your entire argument is based on vapor. If you presented it
as a conjecture (as several have) there'd be no issue, but
as you actually present it ("There are/have been
panspermists, since I don't accept local abiogenesis") it's
equivalent to an argument regarding the number of angels who
can dance on the head of a pin.

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:12:20 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

You would do better to speak only for yourself.

To answer your question to you, you ask the wrong question. I freely
admit that is what I wrote. The problem is you continue to insist on
misrepresenting what it means and what I meant. Stop it.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Apr 18, 7:24�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:12:20 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr

I agree.

> To answer your question to you, you ask the wrong question. �I freely
> admit that is what I wrote. �The problem is you continue to insist on
> misrepresenting what it means and what I meant. �Stop it.

Your assertion notwithstanding, I agree that "DP is no more likely
than the existence of the flying spaghetti monster".

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:34:02 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

Then what is your complaint?

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Apr 18, 8:21�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:34:02 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr

My complaint was not about you or your assertion it was about the way
Harry K argued with pnyikos about it: he was evidently in bad faith.

[Mitchell Coffey]

<sarcasm>But Mark, what about all the unexpected but inevitable
technological discoveries that a directed panspermia program would
lead to? Surely this alone would allow sufficient economic
justification for DP?!</sarcasm>

On the other hand, there may well have been some economic advantage in
ancient Thrumia that made it worth the opportunity cost. On the other
hand, there might be something about Thrumian conditions - socket
wrenches are tied up in Dickensian-style lawsuits over patent
infringement. (To simplify the many complex, arcane and subtle legal
and constitutional issues involved, as well as the many more of the
"He argued *what*?!" level; basically, no new socket wrenches had been
legally constructed on Thrumia for 14.6 half-lives of technetium-99.
Socket wrenches on Thurmia were only available via the black market,
and a unreal bitch on the pocketbook, I can tell you, with waiting
periods that make you want just to sit down on the end of a pier, grab
your guitar, intentionally break one of the strings, and cry out the
Blues! It was finally put on the docket of Thrumia's supreme court,
The Court of Unending Sorrow, but with backlogs, vacations and
whatnot, it would be another 13.7 half-lives before the justices would
even have their clerks start reading the briefs.)

On the other hand (Thrumian's have three hands), Peter makes economic
calculations regarding the cost of a DP project based on allegedly
related projects on Earth. I've been arguing for some time that it is
not possible to make economic comparisons between opportunity costs on
Earth with those facing an unknown race on an unknown planet, an
unknown time ago.

Peter doesn't even understand the issue. I repeated the issue to him a
while ago. His response was frankly embarrassing:

<Me>
> More importantly, how can you possibly make economic calculations
> regarding beings in a civilization, on a planet, in a solar system,
> all of which we know virtually nothing about, based on those from our
> Earth-base, human civilization? If you think you can, then tell me how
> much Thoomian raw aluminum costs in $US 2013. An approximation is
> acceptable.
</Me>
<Peter>
I figure any civilization advanced a thousand years or more beyond
ours is very likely to use the only *intrinsic* measure of cost,
namely the labor theory of value, in planning major projects like
these. [I am assuming the raw materials are not so scarce as to make
the whole project unfeasible].

I'm not put off by the fact that this theory was championed by Marx
and Engels. I embrace truth wherever it is to be found.

Now, I also think there will often be a lot of private enterprise,
governed by the main *extrinsic* measure of value, the "law" of supply
and demand. But governments are quite capable of setting up
enterprises of their own if the available private industries have
prices way out of line, making obscene profits due to lack of
competition.

And I am optimistic enough to think that governments typically do
become enlightened in such advanced civilizations. This includes
hiring laborers at fair wages, refraining from vastly overpaying their
own CEOs, and plowing "profits" back into additional development.

</Peter>

Peter is jaw-droppingly ignorant of the issue.

Mitchell Coffey

[Glenn]

<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:49cdc64d-2848-4b1a...@c7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

Is this also bad faith? "DP is no more likely than the existence of the flying spaghetti monster."

We don't know of the existence of life beyond Earth, but we do know that spaghetti can not fly.

[Burkhard]

On Apr 18, 11:01�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in messagenews:49cdc64d-2848-4b1a...@c7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

A common mistake amongst people who are atheistic towards the FSM. It
is not made from actual spaghetti. Rather, its supernatural substance
caused what we call spaghetti into being

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kknhrn$1rb$6...@reader1.panix.com...

So...in your understanding the existence of "the flying spaghetti monster" is not impossible?

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:a4e4d713-761c-444c...@a34g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

"In that letter, Henderson satirized creationist ideas by professing his belief that whenever a scientist carbon dates an object, a supernatural creator that closely resembles spaghetti and meatballs is there "changing the results with His Noodly Appendage". - Wikipedia

Regardless of what FSM meant to Jillery, neither panspermia or DP proposes a supernatural origin
or the existence of an impossible event such as flying spaghetti.

[Paul J Gans]

I stand by what I wrote.

[Paul J Gans]

No, Jillery did not say that. Your reading skills need improvement.
The arguement was about disproving panspermia, IIRC. Jillery's
comment was to show that the request that panspermia be disproved
was impossible to fulfill.

Got it now?

Your problem was that you took Peter's word for what Jillery
had written.

[Glenn]

"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:88ec0982-e08e-44de...@e5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 17, 11:07 am, Harry K <turn...@q.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 8:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >
> > > On Apr 16, 6:45 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > >For many months now, in order to counteract the hearsay that I am
> > > > >convinced earth life is due to directed panspermia (DP), I have posted
> > > > >my personal opinion that the odds in favor of the DP hypothesis are

> > > > >between 3 to 1 and 30 to 1. In this thread, for the first time, I

> > > > >will give a detailed breakdown of all my estimates that are related to
> > > > >this opinion.
> > > > >To begin with, I freely acknowledge that others might come up with

> > > > >very different estimates. But I feel *very* comfortable arguing for

> > > > >the very modest estimate of a 5% probability that earth life is due to
> > > > >DP -- still enough to make it worthy of serious thought.
> >

> > > > It is curious. Nobody here that I know of ever said that

> > > > panspermia was impossible.
> >
> > > Some time this month, perhaps today, jillery said it was no more
> > > likely than the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
> >
> > > Now don't tell me you've forgotten who jillery is.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > So in your undeerstanding "no more likely" = "impossible"? Strange
> > twist of language.
>

> Not if one means "impossible for all practical purposes." And that's
> what the real issue is here--why argue for something nobody has voiced
> extreme skepticism of?
>
> If you think you can spot a flying spaghetti monster by looking
> unceasingly out your window, be sure someone brings you food and drink
> and NoDoz pills and a potty from time to time. :-)
>
Harry being an atheist, his comment appeared somewhat strange.
Can an atheist scientifically claim that a supernatural being or force is possible?
Perhaps there is some scientific evidence of the flying spaghetti monster.

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kkpv8g$cn2$3...@reader1.panix.com...

Actually, Jillery did say that. In a recent post she "freely admitted" that.

Quote:

"Glenn and I would be grateful if you could answer Glenn's clear and
simple question: "Did you or not say that Panspermia or DP is no more
likely than the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?".

"You would do better to speak only for yourself.

To answer your question to you, you ask the wrong question. I freely
admit that is what I wrote. The problem is you continue to insist on
misrepresenting what it means and what I meant. Stop it."

Got it now?

[Glenn]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kknhrn$1rb$6...@reader1.panix.com...

Peter didn't say that Jillery said DP was impossible either.

In another post, you told me:

"Your problem was that you took Peter's word for what Jillery had written."

Seems you are taking Harry's comment to be what Peter meant.

Is that the sort of behavior that you appear to agree with Ron as being a "lie"?

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:11:09 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

That makes no sense. If your complaint is not about my assertion,
then why ask about what I said?

More to the point, it doesn't matter what your complaint is *not*
about. I would appreciate a clear description of what your complaint
*is* about. I have no idea why you would assert that Harry K acted in
"fully bad faith". Do you even know what that phrase means?

If your complaint isn't just a semantic flame, perhaps you would like
to inform yourself of what you're actually talking about. Although
rockhead didn't specify (and wasn't that oh-so-clever of him?), this
is most likely the one to which he refers:

<uk6qm89otrkur7mt2...@4ax.com>

In this post, the exact phrase that encompasses the words rockhead
found so upsetting is:

**********************************
"Yet another wrongheaded assertion. A flying spaghetti monster isn't
going to be refuted in the foreseeable future either, and is as likely
as DP."
**********************************

The wrongheaded assertion to which the above comment refers is:

**********************************
"Au contraire, it is precisely because we have almost no idea of how
it [abiogenesis] happens that there is no chance of the direct
panspermia hypothesis being refuted in the foreseeable future."
**********************************

Whatever you think Harry K did, he did not act in bad faith here. He
pointed out, correctly, that rockhead misrepresented and misquoted
what I wrote. As anybody who is willing to look at the facts can see,
it's rockhead's act that qualifies as "fully bad faith".

This has been pointed out to you several times by several posters. All
that you have accomplished by ignoring them is to help perpetuate
rockhead's nonsense.

[jillery]

And well you should.

I would think that if people like Glenn and Marc are going to quote
me, they would at the very least make sure that's what I actually
wrote.

Of course, rockhead didn't actually quote anything, and didn't cite
any specific post, which is quite strange since he is usually very
adept at filling his posts with references and quotes he thinks are
relevant.

For those interested in actually knowing what they're talking about,
here is the most likely post rockhead means:

<uk6qm89otrkur7mt2...@4ax.com>

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:22:56 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

Yeppers. Taking rockhead's word for just about anything is going to
be a problem.

[Harry K]

You have a strange definintion of "argue" there. One comment about
the meaning of a ophrase is not an "arguement". And that phrase does
not mean "equals zero".

Harry K

[Harry K]

And when it comes to gods, anything is possible even pigs flying.

Harry K

[Earle Jones]

In article <4190n8pfeqi8hasr5...@4ax.com>,
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:


[...]

> Since there is exactly zero evidence for the existence, not
> to mention the possible actions, of potential panspermists,
> past or present, you're getting a bit ahead of yourself, and
> your entire argument is based on vapor. If you presented it
> as a conjecture (as several have) there'd be no issue, but
> as you actually present it ("There are/have been
> panspermists, since I don't accept local abiogenesis") it's
> equivalent to an argument regarding the number of angels who
> can dance on the head of a pin.

*
Bob: I enjoy your postings (in general), but that sig line is getting a
bit stale.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

--McNameless

earle
*

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:36:38 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

Yeppers.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bal1n81v5237b29va...@4ax.com...

So you assume life on other planets sufficiently advanced as to seed another planet is no more likely than pigs flying.

[Harry K]

On Apr 18, 10:40 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:bal1n81v5237b29va...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:36:38 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <turn...@q.com>

Loooonnnggg leap of logic there...if it can even be called logic.

Harry K

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Apr 17, 1:34 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:02 pm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>
> > On Apr 17, 4:11 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > For many months now, in order to counteract the hearsay that I am
> > > convinced earth life is due to directed panspermia (DP), I have posted
> > > my personal opinion that the odds in favor of the DP hypothesis are
> > > between 3 to 1 and 30 to 1.
>

> > You mean you entertain the idea that it's 30 times more likely to have
> > been DP than to have been earthbound abiogenesis?
>
> > Really??
>
> > Scientologe much?
>
> Argument from incredulity fallacy.

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that
all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they
laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also
laughed at Bozo the Clown." – Carl Sagan

Maybe the laughter at the expense of Columbus, Fulton, and the Wrights
could be classed as Arguments from Incredulity. However, in the case
of Bozo the Clown, it was different.

Maybe you are a genius who is being laughed at.

> Yessir, folks,  the shoe is on the other foot.  Usually y'all get to
> use this line against those who deny that "Mother Earth did it
> (abiogenesis) easily."

"Easily"?

Do you mind awfully much if I use your sentence above to calibrate my
strawman detector?

[jillery]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

It appears that Glenn is in one of his "don't confuse me with facts, I
have no mind" moods.

[Glenn]

"Harry K" <tur...@q.com> wrote in message news:6fff9e91-9421-4d0f...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Explain.

[Glenn]

<ala...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:41207150-a352-416b...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com...

That isn't all you need to calibrate.

[pnyikos]

I'm very short on time today, so this brief reply may be all I have
time for until Monday. [I only post on weekends on extraordinary
occasions.]

Economics isn't everything. The panspermists may realize they have
only a few million years before their sun makes things uninhabitable,
and start a lot of terraforming projects, leaving their descendants to
decide which was most successful.

Or they may have plenty of resources and be wondering what good use to
put them to. Remember how I talked about the Jewish concept of
"mitzvah"?

Here's what I wrote in Section B about this.


B5. What about the astronomical expenses of a panspermia project?

REPLY: The expenses would be spread out over thousands, perhaps
millions of years in the sort of project that Crick and Orgel had in
mind. The project might grow out of a long project of simply
exploring the
planets of other stars with instrumental probes, and during that time
the panspermists could be expected to mine a great many asteroids or
moons of their own "solar" system, greatly expanding the resources at
their disposal.

Lately there has been renewed interest even by private companies in
travel to, and exploitation of our own asteroids.

The panspermia project can be expected to start only after hundreds of
very likely candidates for abiogenesis were found, and no life found
on any of them, giving ample time for these other endeavors to mature.
=============== end of FAQ entry

> the beings who
> would be doing it are, presumably, evolved creatures, and evolution is
> all about economics.
> That reason has not been altered by anything since.

G. K., Chesterton had some pithy things to say about the economic
theory of history. When I have more time, i'll quote some of it to
you.

Are you a subscriber to Marx's theory of history, like I subscribe
(mostly) to his labor theory of value?
>
> Regarding the other numbers, you still make the mistake of giving a
> single value,

Huh? I gave two widely different values for everything, the "Comfort"
value and the "Challenge" value. Everything in between is fair game.

> implying you know enough to set a value.  Start with the
> obvious: the probabilities are between 0 and 1.  Having seen some other
> planets and not seen evidence of intelligence, much less life, on them,
> we can lower the upper bound somewhat, but as yet we have absolutely no
> evidence to raise the lower bound.

Except for evolution on earth, which tells us a good bit about the six
factors of f_i.

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jcs2n85rrhhnj7vls...@4ax.com...

Just, wow!

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:37:48 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones
<earle...@comcast.net>:

You're right, and the subject of it has been gone a while.
Let's try this one (assuming I can remember how auto sigs
work in Agent; as you noted, it's been a while since I
changed it).
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Paul J Gans]

Ever eaten dinner with a two year old?

[Paul J Gans]

So Jillery and I agree that the bare statement of what was
written is misleading. What exactly are you complaining
about?

If you seek enlightenment, look up the original post. You will
find the statement in an environment that gives it a totally
different meaning.

Back in the Good Old Days (tm) movie reviews were mined by
publicists to select sentences and phrases that could be
used to promote the film.

Thus "If you rated films by badness, this film is a prizewinner!"
would be quoted as "Critic X says 'This film is a prizewinner!'".

Got it now?

[Paul J Gans]

Why don't you read Jillery's answers to all this. You aren't funny.

[Paul J Gans]

Glenn won't read it. He's decided that he's the T.O. gadfly
and won't rest anywhere long enough to risk getting hit with
a rolled up newspaper.

[Paul J Gans]

No. Jillery did not say THAT either. In fact the answer is in
the mass of included material above. If you look for it you
may find it.

[jillery]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:17:14 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

I knew Glenn could be dense at times, but he seems to be working on
neutronium.

[Mark Isaak]

Reproductive success is everything, or near enough. Economics is a big
part of that, and the part that is not economics does not help
panspermia, either.

> The panspermists may realize . . .

Save it for your novel.

> Or they may have plenty of resources and be wondering what good use to
> put them to. Remember how I talked about the Jewish concept of
> "mitzvah"?

That's economics, ultimately.

> Here's what I wrote in Section B about this.
>
>
> B5. What about the astronomical expenses of a panspermia project?
>
> REPLY: The expenses would be spread out over thousands, perhaps
> millions of years in the sort of project that Crick and Orgel had in
> mind. The project might grow out of a long project of simply
> exploring the
> planets of other stars with instrumental probes, and during that time
> the panspermists could be expected to mine a great many asteroids or
> moons of their own "solar" system, greatly expanding the resources at
> their disposal.
>
> Lately there has been renewed interest even by private companies in
> travel to, and exploitation of our own asteroids.
>
> The panspermia project can be expected to start only after hundreds of
> very likely candidates for abiogenesis were found, and no life found
> on any of them, giving ample time for these other endeavors to mature.
> =============== end of FAQ entry

Exploration often makes good economic sense. I expect exploration from
other cultures. Exploiting asteroids even morese; the people who do
that will expect to *make* money. Directed panspermia is very different
from exploration or exploitation. Spreading the cost over millennia
does not address the issue and adds additional problems. Your FAQ
answers nothing.

>> the beings who
>> would be doing it are, presumably, evolved creatures, and evolution is
>> all about economics.
>> That reason has not been altered by anything since.
>
> G. K., Chesterton had some pithy things to say about the economic
> theory of history. When I have more time, i'll quote some of it to
> you.
>
> Are you a subscriber to Marx's theory of history, like I subscribe
> (mostly) to his labor theory of value?

Marx is far enough off from describing human culture that I would never
even consider him for anything relating to alien cultures. The
economics I use is that described in Bernd Heinrich's book _Bumblebee
Economics_.

>> Regarding the other numbers, you still make the mistake of giving a
>> single value,
>
> Huh? I gave two widely different values for everything, the "Comfort"
> value and the "Challenge" value. Everything in between is fair game.

Okay, you gave two single values. You never mentioned "range".

>> implying you know enough to set a value. Start with the
>> obvious: the probabilities are between 0 and 1. Having seen some other
>> planets and not seen evidence of intelligence, much less life, on them,
>> we can lower the upper bound somewhat, but as yet we have absolutely no
>> evidence to raise the lower bound.
>
> Except for evolution on earth, which tells us a good bit about the six
> factors of f_i.

No, it doesn't.

I asked you once before, when I was reading all of your posts, if you
had any knowledge or background in statistics. I never saw an answer,
so I ask again. What is your background in statistics?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Apr 20, 3:12 am, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> <alan...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:41207150-a352-416b...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com...

Explain. Or maybe you agree with Nyikos when he asserts that some or
all of his detractors are arguing that abiogenesis is "easy".

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Apr 19, 3:40�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:bal1n81v5237b29va...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:36:38 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <turn...@q.com>

It's not an issue whether a race of beings existed that would be able
to do it, (heck, at a stretch, even we would be able to attempt it.)
but the issue is whether any sufficiently advanced race of beings
would bother with doing such a pointless exercise. That's the point
that you (and Nyikos) keep on pretending to be too stupid to
understand.

[Harry K]

On Apr 19, 11:26 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:10:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:kkni54$1rb$9...@reader1.panix.com...

> ><uk6qm89otrkur7mt2lg6ivletm90a7f...@4ax.com>

>
> Glenn won't read it.  He's decided that he's the T.O. gadfly
> and won't rest anywhere long enough to risk getting hit with
> a rolled up newspaper.
>
> --
>    --- Paul J. Gans

Agree. I have been wondering about him and my current opinion is he
is just sniping from the sidelines and has no opinion of his own.

Harry K

[jillery]

Yeppers. In addition, DP is presented as if it's a legitimate
scientific alternative to homegrown abiogenesis. Those who make that
claim do so in a style reminiscent of ID arguments generally, which
they also present with equal vigor. And since DP is often used as a
supporting argument for ID, it's not unreasonable to conclude their
worldview is similar to those of IDists generally.

[Paul J Gans]

Harry K <tur...@q.com> wrote:

>> >>>> given above. ?Are you starting to understand how all ?this works?

>>
>> >>>Peter makes claims Jillery said "it was no more likely than the existence of the flying
>> >>>spaghetti monster", you claim she didn't, Jillery did not deny saying that:
>>

>> >>>"You take my words out of context. ?It is what you do. ?That statement

>> >>>is in response to your assertion that nobody has disproved DP."
>>
>> >>>Yet this is not reason for considering "that statement" was taken out of context
>> >>>and misleading.
>>
>> >>>Consider:
>> >>>Peter: "Nobody has disproved DP."
>> >>>Jillery: " [DP] is no more likely than the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
>>
>> >>>Neither you, Jillery or Peter supported these claims. Nor have I.
>> >>>All you said above was "Jillery did not say that in anything like the context given above."
>>
>> >>>Is that how "all this" works?
>>
>> >>I stand by what I wrote.
>> >And well you should.
>> >I would think that if people like Glenn and Marc are going to quote
>> >me, they would at the very least make sure that's what I actually
>> >wrote.
>> >Of course, rockhead didn't actually quote anything, and didn't cite
>> >any specific post, which is quite strange since he is usually very
>> >adept at filling his posts with references and quotes he thinks are
>> >relevant.
>> >For those interested in actually knowing what they're talking about,
>> >here is the most likely post rockhead means:
>> ><uk6qm89otrkur7mt2lg6ivletm90a7f...@4ax.com>
>>

>> Glenn won't read it. ?He's decided that he's the T.O. gadfly

>> and won't rest anywhere long enough to risk getting hit with
>> a rolled up newspaper.
>>
>> --

>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans

>Agree. I have been wondering about him and my current opinion is he
>is just sniping from the sidelines and has no opinion of his own.

He may well have an opinion, but at times it does not stop
him from being a bit snide.

[Paul J Gans]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:20:43 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

Well, I'd not go quite that far. Panspermy is a reasonable
conjecture, to be filed away until we know more about both it
and abiogenesis.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Apr 21, 5:28 am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Reasonable? Well, much more so than *Directed* Panspermy, I'll grant
you.

For example, I have no problems in principle with the idea that some
Ancient Astronaut many hundreds of millions of years ago may have
carelessly contaminated our once-lifeless planet with alien microbes.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Apr 20, 6:15 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

DP's just wild assed speculation, with no supporting evidence
whatsoever. DP is a gap-filling fantasy that is yet to find a gap to
fill. Only when earthbound abiogenesis is totally ruled out will DP
have a chance of finding a DP-shaped gap. Till then, there's just no
point (other than entertainment value) wasting any further bandwidth
discussing it.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<fe974a46-27f2-45fe...@mq5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

"Allegro Non Troppo"

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSEJC-cVPuA>

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<8b9dd588-d54d-48c0...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Or if we get contacted by the panspermists.

[hersheyh]

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:37:05 PM UTC-4, pnyikos wrote:
> Just in case some people reading this thread are encountering the term
>
> "directed panspermia" for the first time, I'm quoting from the first
>
> question in the draft for a FAQ on the subject:
>
>
>
> A1. What is directed panspermia?
>
>
>
> REPLY:It is the theory that was introduced by Nobel Laureate
>
> biochemist
>
> Francis Crick and another distinguished biochemist, Leslie Orgel. As
>
> they put it, it is
>
>
>
> "the theory that organisms were deliberately
>
> transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings
>
> on another planet."
>
> -- Icarus 19 (1973) 341-346
>
> http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf
>
>
>
> Drafts of Section A and Sections B and E can be found in the first 20
>
> posts of the following thread:
>
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/6dc598aeffb4708f/f25f4e2fcd38a36d
>
>
>
> Drafts of Sections C and D can be found in the following thread:
>
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/6dc598aeffb4708f/f25f4e2fcd38a36d
>
>
>
> Section C is in two installments in the first twenty posts of that
>
> thread. Section D came later, in three installments:
>
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9cb2a04749b317c7
>
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d3467b7189a9336a
>
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3dd6a28d2665112b
>
>
>
> It was in Section E that I gave the various stages used in defining
>
> the factors of f_i:
>
>
>
> f_i = e_1  *  e_2  *  e_3  *  e_4  * e_5 *  e_6
>
>
>
> where each e_j is the fraction of planets with organisms at Stage j
>
> going on to evolve organisms at Stage j+1.
>
>
>
> Here are the descriptions of the stages, followed by notes on most of
>
> them:
>
>
>
> Stage 1: Efficient replicators and metabolizers.
>
Well, given the nature of biochemistry, the first organisms on earth
were most likely heterotrophs that extracted both energy and carbon
compounds from abiogenic organics that formed on the earth
by abiotic processes. Again that is because all organisms share
at least part of the Krebs cycle, which extracts energy from carbon
compounds under anoxic conditions like existed on the earth for
almost 2 billion years after the existence of life itself. [Some bacteria
have a partial cycle.]

Aerobic metabolism, using O2 to further oxidize the carbon compounds provides
more than 16-18 times as much energy from a carbohydrate molecule. But
that mechanism is useless until there is sufficient free O2 to "burn the garbage"
and get more energy. So aerobic metabolism's electron transport chains must
be subsequent to the generation of significant free O2 in the environment. Most
likely it involved a reversal in direction of catalysis from the electron transport
chains involved in photo- or chemosynthesis.

Chemosynthetic carbon fixation (photosynthesis's main function in the cell is also generation
of carbohydrates from CO2; O2 is a waste by-product) and even one form of
photosynthesis can occur under anoxic conditions. In fact some of these alternate
forms of autotrophy (fixation of C, typically from CO2 but also from CH4) only occur
under anoxic conditions. [Oxygen-producing photosynthesis produces the O2 from
H2O rather than CO2.]

You seem to think that the only form of photosynthesis is the oxygenic form seen in
plants and which arose from cyanobacterial photosynthesis instead of the other
forms that were probably much more common on the early earth. There are
multiple systems for autotrophy, not just the form of photosynthesis you see
in plants and blue-green algae.

The point is that, other than the reaction center of photosynthesis, which is
present in both the anoxic and oxygenic photosynthesizers, there is great
variation in the photo- and chemosynthesizers metabolic systems (unlike
the core of heterotrophy).

Moreover, the type of photosynthesis seen in plants and cyanobacteria seems
to be a late-comer, not the original form of photosynthesis, which was
likely to be one of the anoxic forms.

All forms of photosynthesis are restricted to the eubacteria (not the archeae)
and chlorplastic symbionts found in eucaryotes.

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/154/2/434.full

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5tRSAr1JMhwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA21&dq=%22The+evolutionary+transition+from+anoxygenic+to+oxygenic+photosynthesis%22+Blankenship&ots=xRK9hmXHbk&sig=DTZhyUEYWbZEPnALN1c9rJT6Vy8#v=onepage&q=%22The%20evolutionary%20transition%20from%20anoxygenic%20to%20oxygenic%20photosynthesis%22%20Blankenship&f=false

In short, you seem to be eubacteria/metazoan-morphizing, thinking that life on the
early earth was like what we see now. It wasn't.

> Stage 2: Organisms with organelles, a large genome, and sexual
> reproduction in at least part of the life cycle.
>
Given that most of the genes in mitochondria and even chloroplasts have moved
to the nucleus, I see no reason why those organelles are "necessary". Sexual reproduction
does increase generation to generation variability. Whether it is the only possible mechanism
for doing so is a more open question. You need to be clearer as to why you think
all these steps are "requirements".
>
> Stage 3: Well integrated and differentiated multicellular organisms
> which are actively motile in at least part of the life cycle, with
> lots of scope for variation.
>
>
>
> Stage 4: Well developed nervous system and either internal or external
> "skeleton" suitable for advance to the next stage.
>
>
>
> Stage 5: Ability to take in oxygen (or a very few alternatives) from
>
> the air; skeleton sufficiently strong to enable the animal to move
>
> freely on the land during some stage of its life cycle; sense organs
>
> suitable for forming an integrated perception of the surroundings.
>
>
>
> Stage 6: Well developed brain; extended care of young; ability to
>
> manipulate objects.
>
>
>
> Stage 7: Sophisticated language suitable for expressing events and
>
> abstract concepts; social organization; ability to make a wide variety
>
> of tools for various purposes.
>
>
>
> Re Stage 1: DNA is not an efficient replicator all by itself, nor is
>
> RNA; these
>
> require enzymes to replicate at a reasonable rate, but these enzymes
>
> in turn need to be produced with the help of other enzymes or copies
>
> of themselves. In "life as we know it" they are coded into the DNA
>
> and, more immediately, into mRNA. On other worlds, they might be
>
> ribozymes, but there should be an overall genome which functions as a
>
> unit, such as our DNA.
>
>
>
> Re Stage 2: Plants have alternation of generations, with one
>
> generation asexually reproducing. Sexual reproduction could take the
>
> form of extensive conjugation as in *Paramecium*.
>
>
>
> Re Stage 3: The following do NOT qualify: plants, fungi, slime molds,
>
> sponges, mesozoans. [Cellular slime molds do have a well integrated
>
> multicellular motile stage, but it is not differentiated into organs.
>
> Mesozoans have a set number of cells per adult individual and so are
>
> an evolutionary dead end.
>
>
>
> Re Stage 4: The lancelet (*Branchiostoma*, a.k.a. amphioxus) is the
>
> canonical internal-skeleton example; various arthopods and perhaps
>
> some mollusks (chitons) are external-skeleton examples.
>
>
>
> Re Stage 6: Carl Sagan,in _The Dragons of Eden_, makes a case for
>
> *Saurornithoides* (identified with *Troodon* by some) being at this
>
> stage.
>
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>
> University of South Carolina
>
> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>
> nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[jillery]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:28:01 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

Not to conflate generic panspermy with DP, I agree DP is a reasonable
conjecture. It is not a reasonable scientific hypothesis, nor is it
something that can be considered a reasonable alternative to homegrown
abiogenesis. Since all of the unknowns of homegrown abiogenesis also
applies to the abiogenesis of the initial DP species, DP will always
have more unknowns.

[jillery]

Thank you for taking the time to correct these erroneous assertions. I
knew they were wrong, but I didn't know to explain why. Your
explanations are clear and concise.

[Paul J Gans]

>>> f_i = e_1 ?* ?e_2 ?* ?e_3 ?* ?e_4 ?* e_5 * ?e_6

And devastating.

[eridanus]

El domingo, 21 de abril de 2013 02:04:17 UTC+1, hersheyh escribi�:

very good, man. I do not visited this place for I do not expected
any telling something of interest. I was wrong.

Eridanus

[Paul J Gans]

Exactly. Which is why few spend their time worrying about it
now. Even the early history of the solar system is being revised
NOW because of the new data coming in.

There are just too many unknowns.

[hersheyh]

I would go even further. DP is not an alternative hypothesis to abiogenesis.
It merely says that abiogenesis occurred elsewhere and does nothing
to even try to explain that abiogenic event nor why it needed to occur
elsewhere. In that way, it is merely begging the question of how
abiogenesis occurred.

As I pointed out elsewhere, the first life on the earth most likely was
heterotrophic and used pre-existing abiogenic organics (interconverting
them and/or extracting energy from them). Chemosynthetic and
especially photosynthetic autotrophies were a later (but necessary) invention.
The early forms of both were necessarily anoxic (occurred in an environment
with little or no free O2) and such anoxic systems of autotrophy persist to this
day, including one that produces free S instead of free O2.

That means that any early panspermic life form was far more primitive than
Nyikos would prefer (it appears that he prefers a cyanobacteria-like organism
based on the *form* of early life. Also that means that our form of heterotrophy (extracting
energy from pre-existing carbon compounds) is a secondary heterotrophy that
added on the electron-transport chain and O2 consumption to an initial
anoxic cycle only after there was sufficient environmental O2 in some environment
to make burning the garbage with O2 a useful function.

[hersheyh]

Actually I had written a longer answer that discussed some of Nyiko's other
assumptions which showed that he was simply thinking that panspermists
would be dropping their 'bugs' on a planet ripe for blasting off into
a new civilization (after 'only' 3.8 billion years...after they evolved
photo- and/or chemoautotrophy and after they generated an O2
atmosphere and after they generated an ability to use that O2 in
energy production to generate heterotrophy like we eucaryotic
aerobes have and generate metazoan life like that on the earth.
All relatively easy steps, except ofor the one thing that cannot happen
easily on the earth, going from an abiogenic chemical system to
a biogenic one.

I would say that if we do not find evidence of similar at least earllier life
forms on Mars, another planet in the habitable zone (at least during the
time frame of the putative seeding of the Earth), that would make
panspermy less likely. Finding such evidence, however, might not,
since Mars is close enough that there might be abiogenesis on one
and transfer to the other.

Different life forms (for example, Martian life has a different genetic
code, say with no tryptophan) and different enzymatic pathways, would
be evidence that abiogenesis is easier than we thought and it is only
the conditions needed for continued long-term survival of life that is
hard to come by. However, neither finding would answer the question
about the right conditions or pathways for abiogenesis other than those
we already know about (habitable zone, liquid water, carbon organics).

[Paul J Gans]

[Huge snip, mostly of blank lines.]

Agreed. That point was made early on and then lost in a haze
of verbiage.

>As I pointed out elsewhere, the first life on the earth most likely was
>heterotrophic and used pre-existing abiogenic organics (interconverting
>them and/or extracting energy from them). Chemosynthetic and
>especially photosynthetic autotrophies were a later (but necessary) invention.
>The early forms of both were necessarily anoxic (occurred in an environment
>with little or no free O2) and such anoxic systems of autotrophy persist to this
>day, including one that produces free S instead of free O2.

>That means that any early panspermic life form was far more primitive than
>Nyikos would prefer (it appears that he prefers a cyanobacteria-like organism
>based on the *form* of early life. Also that means that our form of heterotrophy (extracting
>energy from pre-existing carbon compounds) is a secondary heterotrophy that
>added on the electron-transport chain and O2 consumption to an initial
>anoxic cycle only after there was sufficient environmental O2 in some environment
>to make burning the garbage with O2 a useful function.

Exactly. Peter's FAQ listing the stages of life presupposes an
awful lot. Alien life is apt to be far stranger than we can
imagine. Heck, some earth life is far stranger than we can
imagine. And it need not use the same chemical cycles our life
uses. There are many others of varying efficiency.

I have stated that I think that abiogenesis is apt to be easy.
I based that on the seeming fact that life began on earth very
early after the last great bombardment cycle.

Our knowlege of biochemistry is growing by leaps and bounds.
I know folks who teach the subject who claim that by the time
a biochemistry book is published, it is either out of date or
filled with things now known to be wrong. I find it very difficult
to hypothesis in such an environment.

I have admitted to not being a biochemist and to not knowing
very much about biochemistry. My field lies in theory rather
far removed from biochemistry (though I have a couple of published
papers on a model for predicting protein folding).

So I tend to concentrate on the more physical aspects of biogenesis
since that is much closer to my area of knowlege.

[Paul J Gans]

hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:36:35 AM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Giant snip of mainly blank lines.]

>> >Thank you for taking the time to correct these erroneous assertions. I
>> >knew they were wrong, but I didn't know to explain why. Your
>> >explanations are clear and concise.

>> And devastating.

>Actually I had written a longer answer that discussed some of Nyiko's other
>assumptions which showed that he was simply thinking that panspermists
>would be dropping their 'bugs' on a planet ripe for blasting off into
>a new civilization (after 'only' 3.8 billion years...after they evolved
>photo- and/or chemoautotrophy and after they generated an O2
>atmosphere and after they generated an ability to use that O2 in
>energy production to generate heterotrophy like we eucaryotic
>aerobes have and generate metazoan life like that on the earth.
>All relatively easy steps, except ofor the one thing that cannot happen
>easily on the earth, going from an abiogenic chemical system to
>a biogenic one.

>I would say that if we do not find evidence of similar at least earllier life
>forms on Mars, another planet in the habitable zone (at least during the
>time frame of the putative seeding of the Earth), that would make
>panspermy less likely. Finding such evidence, however, might not,
>since Mars is close enough that there might be abiogenesis on one
>and transfer to the other.

Yes. It would be ironic if life began on Mars and came to
earth via the "ejector" route.

>Different life forms (for example, Martian life has a different genetic
>code, say with no tryptophan) and different enzymatic pathways, would
>be evidence that abiogenesis is easier than we thought and it is only
>the conditions needed for continued long-term survival of life that is
>hard to come by. However, neither finding would answer the question
>about the right conditions or pathways for abiogenesis other than those
>we already know about (habitable zone, liquid water, carbon organics).

It seems to me that there are many possible ways for things to "live".
We humans can't even seem to agree on a definition of life. Again,
this is an exciting time to be alive with the huge amount of work
going on.