An expansion of the Drake equation

[pnyikos]

The Drake equation is an abstract equation used to guide estimates of
the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky
Way galaxy. This number equals the product of a number of factors,
all of which are uncertain to greater or lesser degree. One of the
most uncertain, and of special interest to talk.origins is:

f_i: the fraction of planets where life has begun, that
go on to develop intelligent life

It is also "particularly controversial" according to the Wikipedia
entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

There are many stages in the process from "life has begun" to
"intelligent life", and I suggest that we discuss the following
factorization of f_i:


f_i = f_i1 * f_i2 * f_i3 * f_i4 * f_i5 *f_i6

where f_in represents the fraction of planets that progress from stage
n to stage n+1. Here are representative earth organisms for each
stage I envision:

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

Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*

There is some flexibility in deciding where each stage begins, but it
is important to be clear about one's decision since that will affect
the fraction involved. [Though is shouldn't affect the final product.]

Here is a general description of the first stage as I envision it:

Stage 1: Efficient replicators and metabolizers.

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.
Metabolization says that more than just a genome is involved. The
organism grows by taking nutrients from the environment and
incorporating them into its structure, which includes other things
besides the genome.

In my next post I will give general descriptions of the other five
stages. I would be interested in hearing from readers how easy or
hard they think it is to progress from one stage to the next, and why.

[pnyikos]

On Aug 21, 6:48�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> There are many stages in the process from "life has begun" to
> "intelligent life", and I suggest that we discuss the following
> factorization of f_i:
>
> f_i = f_i1 * f_i2 * f_i3 * f_i4 * f_i5 *f_i6
>
> where f_in represents the fraction of planets that progress from stage
> n to stage n+1. �Here are representative earth organisms for each
> stage I envision:
>
> 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
>
> Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*

[snip general description of Stage 1]

> In my next post I will give general descriptions of the other five
> stages.

Correction: the remaining six. Here they are:

Stage 2: A large genome, and sexual reproduction in at least part of
the life cycle. [Plants have alternation of generations, with one
generation asexually reproducing.] Sexual reproduction could take the
form of extensive conjugation as in *Paramecium*.

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

Stage 4: Well developed nervous system and either internal or external
"skeleton" suitable for advance to the next stage. The lancelet
(*Branchiostoma*, a.k.a. amphioxus) is the canonical internal-skeleton
example; various arthopods and perhaps some mollusks (chitons) are
external-skeleton examples.

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. Besides prosimians, raccoons qualify. Carl
Sagan,in _The Dragons of Eden_, makes a case for *Saurornithoides*
(identified with *Troodon* by some) being at this stage.

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

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

>�I would be interested in hearing from readers how easy or

[John Stockwell]

An example of 20/20 hindsight. I have often wondered why anybody bothers
with the Drake equation. Based on our current knowledge of biology,
the Drake equation is no more useful than Bode's Law.

-John

[pnyikos]

On Aug 21, 7:45 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:09:58 PM UTC-6, pnyikos wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 6:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > There are many stages in the process from "life has begun" to
> > > "intelligent life", and I suggest that we discuss the following
> > > factorization of f_i:
>
> > > f_i = f_i1 * f_i2 * f_i3 * f_i4 * f_i5 *f_i6
>
> > > where f_in represents the fraction of planets that progress from stage
> > > n to stage n+1. Here are representative earth organisms for each
> > > stage I envision:
>
> > > 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
>
> > > Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*
>
> > [snip general description of Stage 1]

A general description of the remaining stages follows:

> > nyikos @ math.sc.edu
>
> > > I would be interested in hearing from readers how easy or
> > > hard they think it is to progress from one stage to the next, and why.
>
> An example of 20/20 hindsight.

What is?

> I have often wondered why anybody bothers
> with the Drake equation.  Based on our current knowledge of biology,
> the Drake equation is no more useful than Bode's Law.
>
> -John

Apples and oranges. Bode's "law" [a.k.a. the Bode-Titius law] has
been falsified. OTOH the Drake equation is simply a way of isolating
what are the biggest unknowns and getting reasonable estimates for
some of the other factors.

The Drake equation has the following ingredients. On the left hand
side we have:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which
communication might be possible;

and on the other side we have the product of the following factors:

R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support
life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life
at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop
intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that
releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release
detectable signals into space[5]

R* has been estimated to be 1 for our galaxy in an article I read a
few days ago, which talked about a super-fecund galaxy where R* is
several hundred. Of course, it is the value in our galaxy that is of
use to us.

The next two factors are also subject to only a few orders of
magnitude of uncertainty, as is f_c if we use the general description
I gave for Stage 7, while the uncertainty of f_i involves a great
many orders of magnitude.

I thought it would be helpful to isolate some of the factors in f_i,
especially since I think we have good grounds for thinking f_5 is not
too high, but f_1 and f_2 are particularly difficult to estimate.
That's why, although I think numerical estmates are a lot of fun, I am
mainly interested in analyses of what could drive the value of one of
the new f's up or down, and the uncertainty of each new f that results
from these analyses.

[pnyikos]

Astronomy and space exploration could help us decide how big a factor
f_5 and f_6 are, the ones going from Stage 5 to Stage 6 and from
Stage 6 to Stage 7, respectively:

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. Besides prosimians, raccoons qualify. Carl
Sagan,in _The Dragons of Eden_, makes a case for *Saurornithoides*
(identified with *Troodon* by some) being at this stage.

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

Stage 5 was attained by both arthropods and vertebrates on earth.
Earth's gravity kept the terrestrial arthropods small, but on a planet
with lower surface gravity, creatures that rely on an exoskeleton
could grow fairly large, perhaps large enough to make the transition
to an intelligent species.

Saturn's moon Titan, for example, has a surface gravity of 0.14g, less
than that of our moon, and yet its atmosphere is denser than that of
the earth. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Titan

The main impediment to life (especially intelligent life) developing
on Titan is that so cold there. Chemical reactions work much more
slowly, and this in turn slows down metabolism and reproduction, so
that there may not be enough time for life, even if it gets started,
to evolve into an intelligent species.

But on a planet situated like our earth, with a surface gravity and
atmospheric density like that of Titan, terrestrial animals with
exoskeletons might grow quite large, comparable to ourselves in size
or even larger. At the same time, animals with internal skeletons
like ours might compete with them, so that for the class of such
planets, f_i might be double that of ours.

f_i: the fraction of planets where life has begun, that go on to
develop intelligent life

Peter Nyikos

[Mike Dworetsky]

Before unnecessarily complicating the situation, perhaps you could first
give some serious thought to the reasons that Frank Drake (IMHO a very
intelligent and perceptive person) came up with a simple formula in which
each of the factors was something that could be clearly expressed in a short
sentence*, rather than a long complicated meander about factors about which
we know little or nothing when applied to life elsewhere.

*Even if, as it turned out, some of the factors require vast amounts of
research, such as the fraction of habitable planets.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-08-21 23:45:56 +0000, John Stockwell said:

> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:09:58 PM UTC-6, pnyikos wrote:

>> On Aug 21, 6:48�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> [ … ]

>>
>>> �I would be interested in hearing from readers how easy or

>>
>>> hard they think it is to progress from one stage to the next, and why.
>
> An example of 20/20 hindsight. I have often wondered why anybody bothers
> with the Drake equation. Based on our current knowledge of biology,
> the Drake equation is no more useful than Bode's Law.

With the difference that Bode's Law at least gave a reasonable fit to
the data that Bode had. The Drake equation tells us nothing about
anything.

--
athel

[Nick Keighley]

On Aug 22, 1:22 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 7:45 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:09:58 PM UTC-6, pnyikos wrote:
> > > On Aug 21, 6:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > There are many stages in the process from "life has begun" to
> > > > "intelligent life", and I suggest that we discuss the following
> > > > factorization of f_i:
>
> > > > f_i = f_i1 * f_i2 * f_i3 * f_i4 * f_i5 *f_i6
>
> > > > where f_in represents the fraction of planets that progress from stage
> > > > n to stage n+1. Here are representative earth organisms for each
> > > > stage I envision:
>
> > > > 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
>
> > > > Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*
>
> > > [snip general description of Stage 1]

stages 3-6 seem over-specific (though I see from your later expansion
of your
terms that they aren';t quite as bad as they first appear).

> A general description of the remaining stages follows:
>
> > > Stage 2: A large genome, and sexual reproduction in at least part of

> > > the life cycle. [...]

<snip>

> > > > I would be interested in hearing from readers how easy or
> > > > hard they think it is to progress from one stage to the next, and why.

stage 1 easy. The rest hard. Based on how quickly life appeared on
earth but
on how long it took to for eukaryotes and multi-cellular forms to
appear.

I'm aware of your 'solution' to the rapid appearance of stage 1.

> > An example of 20/20 hindsight.
>
> What is?

AOL. Yes *what* is 20/20 hind-sight

> > I have often wondered why anybody bothers
> > with the Drake equation.  Based on our current knowledge of biology,
> > the Drake equation is no more useful than Bode's Law.
>

> Apples and oranges.  Bode's "law" [a.k.a. the Bode-Titius law] has
> been falsified.  OTOH the Drake equation is simply a way of isolating
> what are the biggest unknowns and getting reasonable estimates for
> some of the other factors.

yes

> The Drake equation has the following ingredients.  On the left hand
> side we have:
>
>     N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which
> communication might be possible;
>
> and on the other side we have the product of the following factors:
>
>     R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy

presumably well known

>     fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets

much higher than we used to think! Again we have hard numbers.

>     ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support
> life per star that has planets

unfortunately many of these new solar systems don't have the neat
clockwork
of our solar system. Still a bit guessy this one (we can't see small
rocky planets)

>     fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life
> at some point

I suspect quite high

>     fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop
> intelligent life

wild guess- much much lower than he previous one

>     fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that
> releases detectable signs of their existence into space

wild ^ googol guess

we simply haven't a clue

We might consider how far those signals might be detected. With our
technology we couldn't detect a civilisation like ours from very far
away
(100 LY?)

>     L = the length of time for which such civilizations release
> detectable signals into space[5]

no idea (though our ability to fu our ecology so quickly doesn't bode
well)

> R* has been estimated to be 1 for our galaxy in an article I read a
> few days ago, which talked about a super-fecund galaxy where R* is
> several hundred.  Of course, it is the value in our galaxy that is of
> use to us.

why is our galaxy so much lower tahn the fecund one?

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 01:16:03 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
<nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> R* has been estimated to be 1 for our galaxy in an article I read a
>> few days ago, which talked about a super-fecund galaxy where R* is
>> several hundred. �Of course, it is the value in our galaxy that is of
>> use to us.
>
>why is our galaxy so much lower tahn the fecund one?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation>

and

<http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/08/17/get-your-galaxy-in-gear/>


Short version, our galaxy is old enough that most of its gravitational
perturbations have evened out. Of course, this wil likely change once
Andromeda collides with us in about 4 billions years, give or take.

But then, there's no accounting for Q

[Nick Keighley]

On Aug 22, 11:42�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 01:16:03 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
>

> <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> R* has been estimated to be 1 for our galaxy in an article I read a
> >> few days ago, which talked about a super-fecund galaxy where R* is
> >> several hundred. Of course, it is the value in our galaxy that is of
> >> use to us.
>
> >why is our galaxy so much lower tahn the fecund one?
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation>
>
> and
>

> <http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/08/17/get-your-galaxy-in...>

>
> Short version, our galaxy is old enough that most of its gravitational
> perturbations have evened out. �Of course, this wil likely change once
> Andromeda collides with us in about 4 billions years, give or take.

I'll order my popcorn

[Steven L.]

The Drake Equation includes factors from astronomy, biochemistry, and
biology.

We can have a serious discussion about the astronomical factors, since
we can observe the universe from right here on Earth.

We *might* have some discussion about the biochemistry factor--which
planets are suitable for life--as we learn more about the planet Mars.

But the moment we get to the biology factors, we're screwed. Because we
have only ONE data point, Earth biology and its history. It's useless
to try to form sweeping conjectures about life in the Galaxy from just
one data point.

Real evidence for the Drake Equation will have to wait until real
evidence appears about life on other planets. Until then, any
speculation about extraterrestrial life remains thinly veiled science
fiction.



--
Steven L.

[Steven L.]

Back circa 1960, astronomers practically took it for granted that
exoplanets must exist in the Galaxy, even though they would not have
hard evidence for another 30 years. That's because they did have the
universal laws of physics and chemistry, which enabled them to analogize
our Sun to other similar stars.

Today, the issue is this: Is evolution by natural selection a universal
law in the same way that chemistry has universal laws? If life did
appear on some exoplanet, will it evolve by natural selection just as it
does here on Earth?

As with exoplanets in 1960, we don't have hard evidence yet. But we do
have the mathematics of population dynamics, which enables us to do
theoretical studies on how populations of life forms might evolve over time.

From theoretical studies, there is strong evidence that evolution by
natural selection is a universal law wherever abiogenesis first occurs.

And that means that complex life can evolve eventually.



--
Steven L.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:24:55 -0400, Steven L. wrote
(in article <rP-dnVtux9kzUqnN...@earthlink.com>):

> On 8/21/2012 7:45 PM, John Stockwell wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:09:58 PM UTC-6, pnyikos wrote:

>>> On Aug 21, 6:48ï¿œpm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are many stages in the process from "life has begun" to
>>>
>>>> "intelligent life", and I suggest that we discuss the following
>>>
>>>> factorization of f_i:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> f_i = f_i1 * f_i2 * f_i3 * f_i4 * f_i5 *f_i6
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> where f_in represents the fraction of planets that progress from stage
>>>

>>>> n to stage n+1. ï¿œHere are representative earth organisms for each

>>>> ï¿œI would be interested in hearing from readers how easy or

>>>
>>>> hard they think it is to progress from one stage to the next, and why.
>>
>> An example of 20/20 hindsight. I have often wondered why anybody bothers
>> with the Drake equation. Based on our current knowledge of biology,
>> the Drake equation is no more useful than Bode's Law.
>
> Back circa 1960, astronomers practically took it for granted that
> exoplanets must exist in the Galaxy, even though they would not have
> hard evidence for another 30 years. That's because they did have the
> universal laws of physics and chemistry, which enabled them to analogize
> our Sun to other similar stars.
>
> Today, the issue is this: Is evolution by natural selection a universal
> law in the same way that chemistry has universal laws? If life did
> appear on some exoplanet, will it evolve by natural selection just as it
> does here on Earth?
>
> As with exoplanets in 1960, we don't have hard evidence yet. But we do
> have the mathematics of population dynamics, which enables us to do
> theoretical studies on how populations of life forms might evolve over time.
>
> From theoretical studies, there is strong evidence that evolution by
> natural selection is a universal law wherever abiogenesis first occurs.
>
> And that means that complex life can evolve eventually.
>
>
>
>

Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I missed
you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that light.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:12:57 -0400, Steven L. wrote
(in article <ypKdnbfyKa98UanN...@earthlink.com>):

And some predictions made back when the DE was new have been confirmed.

>
> We *might* have some discussion about the biochemistry factor--which
> planets are suitable for life--as we learn more about the planet Mars.

Mars, smars. Me want probes sent to Jovian subsystem. Me want probes to the
Saturnian subsystem. Me stop here, despite the ease of making jokes about
probes to the seventh planet's subsystem. See the episodes of
<http://www.gocomics.com/brewsterrockit> which feature <name redacted 'cause
even I don't go that far> of Uranus.

And, oh, yeah, Pluto is a planet, suitable for up-close and personal
exploration by members of certain IAU committees and creationists of all
types. I'll even help pay for the trip... one way.

>
> But the moment we get to the biology factors, we're screwed. Because we
> have only ONE data point, Earth biology and its history. It's useless
> to try to form sweeping conjectures about life in the Galaxy from just
> one data point.
>
> Real evidence for the Drake Equation will have to wait until real
> evidence appears about life on other planets. Until then, any
> speculation about extraterrestrial life remains thinly veiled science
> fiction.

Not veiled at all, IMHO.

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:12:57 -0400, "Steven L."

<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:


[...]

>The Drake Equation includes factors from astronomy, biochemistry, and
>biology.
>
>We can have a serious discussion about the astronomical factors, since
>we can observe the universe from right here on Earth.
>
>We *might* have some discussion about the biochemistry factor--which
>planets are suitable for life--as we learn more about the planet Mars.
>
>But the moment we get to the biology factors, we're screwed. Because we
>have only ONE data point, Earth biology and its history. It's useless
>to try to form sweeping conjectures about life in the Galaxy from just
>one data point.
>
>Real evidence for the Drake Equation will have to wait until real
>evidence appears about life on other planets. Until then, any
>speculation about extraterrestrial life remains thinly veiled science
>fiction.

Does the Earth really represent just one datum in this context? The
Earth provides multiple environments, and there are a variety of
extremophiles thriving in environments once thought inhospitable to
any kind of life:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile>

Long, long ago, I was taught that all life on Earth depends on energy
from the Sun. We now know of several exceptions to that rule. With
the information from planetary probes over the last 50 years, we also
know of several planets which provide energy sources besides the Sun.
ISTM these facts increase the chances of other life-supporting planets
existing around not just our Sun but other stars as well.

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

<snip.

>
>Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I missed
>you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that light.

Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
that word. He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
(in article <q8n938dtipku59mvk...@4ax.com>):

Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the original
whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a
creationist, just a sneaky one.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:22:36 -0400, jillery wrote
(in article <d8m9381hkb4tudkph...@4ax.com>):

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:12:57 -0400, "Steven L."
> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>> The Drake Equation includes factors from astronomy, biochemistry, and
>> biology.
>>
>> We can have a serious discussion about the astronomical factors, since
>> we can observe the universe from right here on Earth.
>>
>> We *might* have some discussion about the biochemistry factor--which
>> planets are suitable for life--as we learn more about the planet Mars.
>>
>> But the moment we get to the biology factors, we're screwed. Because we
>> have only ONE data point, Earth biology and its history. It's useless
>> to try to form sweeping conjectures about life in the Galaxy from just
>> one data point.
>>
>> Real evidence for the Drake Equation will have to wait until real
>> evidence appears about life on other planets. Until then, any
>> speculation about extraterrestrial life remains thinly veiled science
>> fiction.
>
>
> Does the Earth really represent just one datum in this context?

Yep. Things like gravity, radiation, and the available mix of minerals see to
that. Jupiter and the Jovian subsystem have _radically_ differing
environments for all three of those.

> The
> Earth provides multiple environments, and there are a variety of
> extremophiles thriving in environments once thought inhospitable to
> any kind of life:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile>
>
> Long, long ago, I was taught that all life on Earth depends on energy
> from the Sun. We now know of several exceptions to that rule. With
> the information from planetary probes over the last 50 years, we also
> know of several planets which provide energy sources besides the Sun.
> ISTM these facts increase the chances of other life-supporting planets
> existing around not just our Sun but other stars as well.
>

Nothing which can survive on Earth is at all likely to be able to survive on
Jupiter. Earth's one data point. Lots of subdivisions, but still just one.
Mars would be an expansion of Earth's data point, 'cause a case can be made
for some examples of life on Earth surviving on Mars, which is, after all, an
Earth-like, small, rocky object with a relatively thin (okay, very thin in
Mars' case) atmosphere. A case could even be made for life on Venus, even if
the atmosphere there has non-trivial pressure. Jupiter, Saturn, some of their
satellites, that's different. Pluto is right out.

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:34:17 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"

<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>(in article <q8n938dtipku59mvk...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>> <snip.
>>
>>>
>>> Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I
>>> missed
>>> you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that light.
>>
>> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
>> that word. He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>>
>
>Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the original
>whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a
>creationist, just a sneaky one.

He is perhaps sneaky about the origin of life but seems to accept
evolution on earth from that point on.

[Glenn]

"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
news:k12n4...@news3.newsguy.com...

Questions of where the "original whatever came from" is not a logical fallacy,
it is a natural consequence of science, that one conclusion leads to more
questions. How many years have you been using this lame argument? Panspermia is
a real hypothesis, not "creationism in drag".

[Glenn]

"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message

news:k12nq...@news3.newsguy.com...

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:22:36 -0400, jillery wrote

Look up Tardigrade, tard.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:03:43 -0400, Glenn wrote
(in article <glennsheldon-k12p18$dl6$1...@dont-email.me>):

The direction of rotation makes no difference. Venus is still a small, rocky,
object which has an atmosphere noticeably less dense than that of a gas
giant.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:50:23 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
(in article <kro938hqb6ejpg977...@4ax.com>):

That just makes him an OEC.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:01:30 -0400, Glenn wrote
(in article <glennsheldon-k12ot3$cqc$1...@dont-email.me>):

>
> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
> news:k12n4...@news3.newsguy.com...
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>> (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvk...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I
>>>> missed
>>>> you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that
>>>> light.
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
>>> that word. He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>>>
>>
>> Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the original
>> whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a
>> creationist, just a sneaky one.
>>
> Questions of where the "original whatever came from" is not a logical
fallacy,

I didn't say it was.

> it is a natural consequence of science, that one conclusion leads to more
> questions. How many years have you been using this lame argument?

You appear to have generated a straw man argument in order to attack it.

> Panspermia
> is
> a real hypothesis, not "creationism in drag".

Nah, it's creationism in drag. Damn ugly drag, too.

[Ernest Major]

In message <k12n4...@news3.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea
<try.n...@but.see.sig> writes

His espousal of panspermia is not grounds for inferring that he is a
creationist.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Richard Norman]

Your understanding of the tardigrades compares with your understanding
of what creationism is.

[Ernest Major]

In message <k12vf...@news4.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea
<try.n...@but.see.sig> writes

Perhaps you should take his advice and look up tardigrade. Tardigrade is
not an adjective referring to orbital direction, as in prograde and
retrodgrade; instead it is a noun referring to a group of animals.

Tardigrades are remarkably tolerant of some extreme conditions. (But I
doubt that they would survive Venus, or Jupiter, so Glenn only has a
smidgen of a point.)
--
alias Ernest Major

[UC]

There is absolutely nothing sound about this 'equation'.

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman

Incorrect. He asserts directed panspermia, with expressed skepticism
of natural forces likely to produce abiogenesis on Earth.

[jillery]

No need to focus on just Jupiter.

>> The
>> Earth provides multiple environments, and there are a variety of
>> extremophiles thriving in environments once thought inhospitable to
>> any kind of life:
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile>
>>
>> Long, long ago, I was taught that all life on Earth depends on energy
>> from the Sun. We now know of several exceptions to that rule. With
>> the information from planetary probes over the last 50 years, we also
>> know of several planets which provide energy sources besides the Sun.
>> ISTM these facts increase the chances of other life-supporting planets
>> existing around not just our Sun but other stars as well.
>>
>
>Nothing which can survive on Earth is at all likely to be able to survive on
>Jupiter. Earth's one data point. Lots of subdivisions, but still just one.
>Mars would be an expansion of Earth's data point, 'cause a case can be made
>for some examples of life on Earth surviving on Mars, which is, after all, an
>Earth-like, small, rocky object with a relatively thin (okay, very thin in
>Mars' case) atmosphere. A case could even be made for life on Venus, even if
>the atmosphere there has non-trivial pressure. Jupiter, Saturn, some of their
>satellites, that's different. Pluto is right out.

The Wiki article specifically mentions extremophiles that survive the
simulated conditions of Mars. And what of Jupiter's moon Europa? Or
Saturn's moon Enceladus? Both demonstrate thermal gradients due to
gravitational stretching, sufficiently energetic to recycle their
entire surfaces. Plenty of energy there to fuel life forces.

You and I seem to have very different understanding of what qualifies
as a 'point'. If you insist that Earth is only one datum, I hope you
will at least acknowledge that datum is very different than it was
just 50 years ago.

[Ernest Major]

In message <pp2a381vh5ch6t015...@4ax.com>, jillery
<69jp...@gmail.com> writes

In itself, that still doesn't make him a creationist.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Glenn]

"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message

news:k12vp...@news4.newsguy.com...

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:01:30 -0400, Glenn wrote
> (in article <glennsheldon-k12ot3$cqc$1...@dont-email.me>):
>
> >
> > "J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
> > news:k12n4...@news3.newsguy.com...
> >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
> >> (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvk...@4ax.com>):
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I
> >>>> missed
> >>>> you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that
> >>>> light.
> >>>
> >>> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
> >>> that word. He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the original
> >> whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a
> >> creationist, just a sneaky one.
> >>
> > Questions of where the "original whatever came from" is not a logical
> fallacy,
>
> I didn't say it was.

You used it as such.

>
> > it is a natural consequence of science, that one conclusion leads to more
> > questions. How many years have you been using this lame argument?
>
> You appear to have generated a straw man argument in order to attack it.

And here you unwittingly demonstrate deceit. If my interpretation is a strawman,
your "beg the question of" was a logical fallacy. Why hide what you clearly
meant?

>
> > Panspermia
> > is
> > a real hypothesis, not "creationism in drag".
>
> Nah, it's creationism in drag. Damn ugly drag, too.
>

So panspermia is creationism in your book. How enlightening.

[Glenn]

"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0RsCC8PO...@meden.invalid...

Not in the "usual" sense of the word.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:09:59 -0400, Glenn wrote
(in article <glennsheldon-k133ug$kgi$1...@dont-email.me>):

Nope.

>>
>>> it is a natural consequence of science, that one conclusion leads to more
>>> questions. How many years have you been using this lame argument?
>>
>> You appear to have generated a straw man argument in order to attack it.
>
> And here you unwittingly demonstrate deceit. If my interpretation is a
> strawman,
> your "beg the question of" was a logical fallacy. Why hide what you clearly
> meant?

I didn't.

>>
>>> Panspermia
>>> is
>>> a real hypothesis, not "creationism in drag".
>>
>> Nah, it's creationism in drag. Damn ugly drag, too.
>>
> So panspermia is creationism in your book.

That would be what I said. Twice.

> How enlightening.

Glad I could help.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:48:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>The Drake equation is an abstract equation used to guide estimates of
>the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky
>Way galaxy. This number equals the product of a number of factors,
>all of which are uncertain to greater or lesser degree.

Everything in the Drake Equation beyond the number of stars
( and now, *very* tentatively, the number of Earthlike
planets) in the galaxy is nothing more than a WAG (not even
a SWAG), since we have a data sample of exactly *one
planet*, and exactly no way to tell if conditions and
results here are very common, fairly common, or wildly
unlikely. This is a classic case of theorizing in advance of
the data. Amusing for a late-night bull session, but nothing
more.

<snip>
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:08:57 -0400, Ernest Major wrote
(in article <khpGe1MZ...@meden.invalid>):

Depends on whether you think that panspermia is merely warmed over OEC. I do.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:12:09 -0400, Glenn wrote
(in article <glennsheldon-k1342i$lda$1...@dont-email.me>):

That's why he's a _sneaky_ creationist.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:19:45 -0400, Ernest Major wrote
(in article <$hXA+yNh...@meden.invalid>):

My error. Thanks for the correction.

>
> Tardigrades are remarkably tolerant of some extreme conditions. (But I
> doubt that they would survive Venus, or Jupiter, so Glenn only has a
> smidgen of a point.)
>

Venus, maybe. Jupiter, not a hope in hell.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:40:42 -0400, jillery wrote
(in article <5q2a38911kv078un6...@4ax.com>):

And they're both a lot closer to Mars and Earth in their general conditions
than to the surface of Jupiter itself.

>
> You and I seem to have very different understanding of what qualifies
> as a 'point'. If you insist that Earth is only one datum, I hope you
> will at least acknowledge that datum is very different than it was
> just 50 years ago.
>

Oh, there's no doubt that there is a much wider range of environments here on
Earth than was thought of only a few years ago. They're still nowhere near
the kind of environments found even at the bottom of the atmosphere of Venus,
much less those in a gas giant. The radiation levels alone would see to that.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:33:40 -0400, UC wrote
(in article
<uranium-9fb1534b-630e-...@w9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 21, 6:48ï¿œpm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> The Drake equation is an abstract equation used to guide estimates of
>> the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky

>> Way galaxy. ï¿œThis number equals the product of a number of factors,
>> all of which are uncertain to greater or lesser degree. ï¿œOne of the

>> most uncertain, and of special interest to talk.origins is:
>>
>> f_i: the fraction of planets where life has begun, that
>> go on to develop intelligent life
>>
>> It is also "particularly controversial" according to the Wikipedia
>> entry.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
>>
>> There are many stages in the process from "life has begun" to
>> "intelligent life", and I suggest that we discuss the following
>> factorization of f_i:
>>
>> f_i = f_i1 * f_i2 * f_i3 * f_i4 * f_i5 *f_i6
>>
>> where f_in represents the fraction of planets that progress from stage

>> n to stage n+1. ï¿œHere are representative earth organisms for each

>> stage I envision:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*
>>
>> There is some flexibility in deciding where each stage begins, but it
>> is important to be clear about one's decision since that will affect
>> the fraction involved. [Though is shouldn't affect the final product.]
>>
>> Here is a general description of the first stage as I envision it:
>>
>> Stage 1: Efficient replicators and metabolizers.
>>
>> 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. ï¿œIn "life as we know it" they are coded into the DNA
>> and, more immediately, into mRNA. ï¿œOn other worlds, they might be

>> ribozymes, but there should be an overall genome which functions as a
>> unit, such as our DNA.

>> Metabolization says that more than just a genome is involved. ï¿œThe

>> organism grows by taking nutrients from the environment and
>> incorporating them into its structure, which includes other things
>> besides the genome.
>>
>> In my next post I will give general descriptions of the other five

>> stages. ï¿œI would be interested in hearing from readers how easy or

>> hard they think it is to progress from one stage to the next, and why.
>
> There is absolutely nothing sound about this 'equation'.
>

Pete's left little toenail is smarter than you are, invertebrate pervert. Go
count irregular verbs in a Romanian translation of _Don Quixote_.

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:34:10 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"

<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:08:57 -0400, Ernest Major wrote
>(in article <khpGe1MZ...@meden.invalid>):
>
>> In message <k12n4...@news3.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea
>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> writes
>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>>> (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvk...@4ax.com>):
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I
>>>>> missed
>>>>> you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that
>>>>> light.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
>>>> that word. He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the original
>>> whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a
>>> creationist, just a sneaky one.
>>>
>> His espousal of panspermia is not grounds for inferring that he is a
>> creationist.
>>
>
>Depends on whether you think that panspermia is merely warmed over OEC. I do.

So you would call Orgel and Crick creationists? I think few would
agree.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:32:45 -0400, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article <ni5a38dg5brq7ocb9...@4ax.com>):

> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:48:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>> The Drake equation is an abstract equation used to guide estimates of
>> the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky
>> Way galaxy. This number equals the product of a number of factors,
>> all of which are uncertain to greater or lesser degree.
>
> Everything in the Drake Equation beyond the number of stars
> ( and now, *very* tentatively, the number of Earthlike
> planets) in the galaxy is nothing more than a WAG (not even
> a SWAG), since we have a data sample of exactly *one
> planet*, and exactly no way to tell if conditions and
> results here are very common, fairly common, or wildly
> unlikely. This is a classic case of theorizing in advance of
> the data. Amusing for a late-night bull session, but nothing
> more.
>
> <snip>
>

Like I said elsewhere, it's not even veiled SF. More data is required. Visits
to the rest of the solar system at a minimum, more probably visits to nearby
star systems. This is likely to prove expensive in terms of both cash and
time.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:49:11 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
(in article <tr6a38d3u8mtamr6v...@4ax.com>):

Depends. Where they _directed_ panspermists, like Pete? If so, yep. If not...
more data needed.

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:59:47 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"

The title of their paper is, in fact, "Directed Panspermia"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248

So you say they are creationists. That means you use the term
differently from the rest of the known universe.

[jillery]

I don't argue that point. He uses directed panspermia similarly to
how others use ex. geocentrism, astrology, or homeopathy. You don't
have to be a creationist to assert them, but I suspect there is a
strong correlation.

[Richard Norman]

Oops, it seems my clipboard let me down on the citation.

Here is the Crick-Orgel "Directed Panspermia" paper
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:40:19 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"

To say that Enceladus and Europa have conditions generally similar to
Earth stretches your point beyond credibility. I don't see how
comparisons to Jupiter makes any difference here.

>> You and I seem to have very different understanding of what qualifies
>> as a 'point'. If you insist that Earth is only one datum, I hope you
>> will at least acknowledge that datum is very different than it was
>> just 50 years ago.
>>
>
>Oh, there's no doubt that there is a much wider range of environments here on
>Earth than was thought of only a few years ago. They're still nowhere near
>the kind of environments found even at the bottom of the atmosphere of Venus,
>much less those in a gas giant. The radiation levels alone would see to that.

I don't understand why you're so focused on Jupiter and other gas
giants. Even assuming your assertion is correct, I don't see how that
can be generalized to the rest of the Solar System, or to other
planetary systems.

[UC]

On Aug 22, 1:43�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:33:40 -0400, UC wrote
> (in article

> <uranium-9fb1534b-630e-4e62-81ec-843ca5187...@w9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 21, 6:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> The Drake equation is an abstract equation used to guide estimates of
> >> the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky

> >> Way galaxy. This number equals the product of a number of factors,
> >> all of which are uncertain to greater or lesser degree. One of the

> >> most uncertain, and of special interest to talk.origins is:
>
> >> f_i: the fraction of planets where life has begun, that
> >> go on to develop intelligent life
>
> >> It is also "particularly controversial" according to the Wikipedia
> >> entry.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
>
> >> There are many stages in the process from "life has begun" to
> >> "intelligent life", and I suggest that we discuss the following
> >> factorization of f_i:
>
> >> f_i = f_i1 * f_i2 * f_i3 * f_i4 * f_i5 *f_i6
>
> >> where f_in represents the fraction of planets that progress from stage

> >> n to stage n+1. Here are representative earth organisms for each

> >> stage I envision:
>
> >> 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
>
> >> Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*
>
> >> There is some flexibility in deciding where each stage begins, but it
> >> is important to be clear about one's decision since that will affect
> >> the fraction involved. [Though is shouldn't affect the final product.]
>
> >> Here is a general description of the first stage as I envision it:
>
> >> Stage 1: Efficient replicators and metabolizers.
>
> >> 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.

> >> Metabolization says that more than just a genome is involved. The

> >> organism grows by taking nutrients from the environment and
> >> incorporating them into its structure, which includes other things
> >> besides the genome.
>
> >> In my next post I will give general descriptions of the other five

> >> stages. I would be interested in hearing from readers how easy or

> >> hard they think it is to progress from one stage to the next, and why.
>
> > There is absolutely nothing sound about this 'equation'.
>
> Pete's left little toenail is smarter than you are, invertebrate pervert. Go
> count irregular verbs in a Romanian translation of _Don Quixote_.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

The likelihood of encountering other intelligent life is millions of
orders of magnitude less than people imagine.

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 8:12 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> The Drake Equation includes factors from astronomy, biochemistry, and
> biology.
>
> We can have a serious discussion about the astronomical factors, since
> we can observe the universe from right here on Earth.
>
> We *might* have some discussion about the biochemistry factor--which
> planets are suitable for life--as we learn more about the planet Mars.
>
> But the moment we get to the biology factors, we're screwed.

How do you expect to get biochemistry data from Mars except as part of
biological data?

> Because we
> have only ONE data point, Earth biology and its history.

That's speaking from the point of view of one using statistics in a
cautious, conservative way. I speak from the point of view of one who
thinks it is possible to reason about things, and come to some
interesting conclusions, even if they do not lead to hard and fast
numbers.

Let your imagination soar. We have lots of "what-if" questions right
here on earth. Numerous people have speculated that if dinosaurs
hadn't been wiped out, *Saurornithoides" or some similarly big-brained
dinosaur might have evolved into an intelligent species long ago.

[I can't find my copy of _The Dragons of Eden_ at the moment, but
Carl Sagan certainly put great stress on Saurornithoides being
brainier than the mammals of the time, and IIRC he even speculated
along these lines.]

People even speculated on what these descendants might have looked
like, but the published pictures were too heavily influenced by Grade
B science fiction movies.

Does this line of thinking seem to be correct? Or is it the case that
we humans are a grand fluke even given diverse assortments of
creatures at Stage 6 (prosimian level)? If your answer to the latter
is Yes, then why does the fossil record show mammals so consistently
evolving larger brains?

> It's useless
> to try to form sweeping conjectures about life in the Galaxy from just
> one data point.

This kind of defeatism may have been behind the end of government
funding for SETI. But private citizens continue to champion it.

> Real evidence for the Drake Equation will have to wait until real
> evidence appears about life on other planets.  Until then, any
> speculation about extraterrestrial life remains thinly veiled science
> fiction.

Old fashioned naturalists seem to be a dying breed, replaced by
specialists with tunnel vision. The 1950's were full of visionaries,
but already then there was a widespread fear that the future would
bring overspecialization.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 8:24�am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 8/21/2012 7:45 PM, John Stockwell wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:09:58 PM UTC-6, pnyikos wrote:
> >> On Aug 21, 6:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>

> >>> There are many stages in the process from "life has begun" to
>
> >>> "intelligent life", and I suggest that we discuss the following
>
> >>> factorization of f_i:
>
> >>> f_i = f_i1 * f_i2 * f_i3 * f_i4 * f_i5 *f_i6
>
> >>> where f_in represents the fraction of planets that progress from stage
>
> >>> n to stage n+1. Here are representative earth organisms for each
>
> >>> stage I envision:
>
> >>> 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
>
> >>> Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*
>

> >> [snip general description of Stage 1]

>
> >>> In my next post I will give general descriptions of the other five
>
> >>> stages.
>

> >> Correction: the remaining six. �Here they are:
>
> >> Stage 2: A large genome, and sexual reproduction in at least part of
>
> >> the life cycle. [Plants have alternation of generations, with one
>
> >> generation asexually reproducing.] �Sexual reproduction could take the
>
> >> form of extensive conjugation as in *Paramecium*.
>
> >> Stage 3: Well integrated and differentiated organisms which are
>
> >> actively motile in at least part of the life cycle, with lots of scope
>
> >> for variation.
>
> >> � �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.]
>
> >> Stage 4: Well developed nervous system and either internal or external
>
> >> "skeleton" suitable for advance to the next stage. �The lancelet
>
> >> (*Branchiostoma*, a.k.a. amphioxus) is the canonical internal-skeleton
>
> >> example; various arthopods and perhaps some mollusks (chitons) are
>
> >> external-skeleton examples.
>
> >> 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. �Besides prosimians, raccoons qualify. �Carl
>
> >> Sagan,in _The Dragons of Eden_, makes a case for *Saurornithoides*
>
> >> (identified with *Troodon* by some) being at this stage.
>
> >> Stage 7: Sophisticated language suitable for expressing events and
>
> >> abstract concepts; social organization; ability to make a wide variety
>
> >> of tools for various purposes.
>
> >> Peter Nyikos
>
> >> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics � � � -- standard disclaimer--
>
> >> University of South Carolina
>
> >>http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>
> >> nyikos @ math.sc.edu

>
> >>> I would be interested in hearing from readers how easy or
>
> >>> hard they think it is to progress from one stage to the next, and why.
>

> > An example of 20/20 hindsight. I have often wondered why anybody bothers
> > with the Drake equation. �Based on our current knowledge of biology,
> > the Drake equation is no more useful than Bode's Law.
>
> Back circa 1960, astronomers practically took it for granted that
> exoplanets must exist in the Galaxy, even though they would not have
> hard evidence for another 30 years. �That's because they did have the
> universal laws of physics and chemistry, which enabled them to analogize
> our Sun to other similar stars.
>
> Today, the issue is this: �Is evolution by natural selection a universal
> law in the same way that chemistry has universal laws? �If life did
> appear on some exoplanet, will it evolve by natural selection just as it
> does here on Earth?
>
> As with exoplanets in 1960, we don't have hard evidence yet. �But we do
> have the mathematics of population dynamics, which enables us to do
> theoretical studies on how populations of life forms might evolve over time.
>
> �From theoretical studies, there is strong evidence that evolution by
> natural selection is a universal law wherever abiogenesis first occurs.
>
> And that means that complex life can evolve eventually.

Not a bad conclusion from someone who labeled something similar
"thinly veiled science fiction" in his post immediately preceding this
one.

But what do you mean by "complex"? Stage 1? Stage 2?

Do you think evolution to an intelligent species is possible without
some kind of sexual reproduction, which I incuded in Stage 2? I
highly doubt that it can happen in the time frame of the stable life
of a G or K star. Our sun, a G star, has about 10 billion years of
"useful" life, but only about 1/10th of the remaining useful life will
have earth still in the "Goldilocks zone". If this is typical, life
has about 5 billion years to succeed or fail in producing intelligent
life.

Peter Nyikos

[Boikat]

How would you know?

Boikat

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 8:35�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:24:55 -0400, Steven L. wrote
> (in article <rP-dnVtux9kzUqnNnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...@earthlink.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/21/2012 7:45 PM, John Stockwell wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:09:58 PM UTC-6, pnyikos wrote:

> >>> On Aug 21, 6:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> There are many stages in the process from "life has begun" to
>
> >>>> "intelligent life", and I suggest that we discuss the following
>
> >>>> factorization of f_i:
>
> >>>> f_i = f_i1 * f_i2 * f_i3 * f_i4 * f_i5 *f_i6
>
> >>>> where f_in represents the fraction of planets that progress from stage
>
> >>>> n to stage n+1. Here are representative earth organisms for each
>
> >>>> stage I envision:
>
> >>>> 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
>
> >>>> Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*
>

> >>> [snip general description of Stage 1]
>

> >>>> In my next post I will give general descriptions of the other five
>
> >>>> stages.
>

> >>>> I would be interested in hearing from readers how easy or
>
> >>>> hard they think it is to progress from one stage to the next, and why.
>

> >> An example of 20/20 hindsight. I have often wondered why anybody bothers
> >> with the Drake equation. �Based on our current knowledge of biology,
> >> the Drake equation is no more useful than Bode's Law.
>
> > Back circa 1960, astronomers practically took it for granted that
> > exoplanets must exist in the Galaxy, even though they would not have
> > hard evidence for another 30 years. �That's because they did have the
> > universal laws of physics and chemistry, which enabled them to analogize
> > our Sun to other similar stars.
>
> > Today, the issue is this: �Is evolution by natural selection a universal
> > law in the same way that chemistry has universal laws? �If life did
> > appear on some exoplanet, will it evolve by natural selection just as it
> > does here on Earth?
>
> > As with exoplanets in 1960, we don't have hard evidence yet. �But we do
> > have the mathematics of population dynamics, which enables us to do
> > theoretical studies on how populations of life forms might evolve over time.
>
> > �From theoretical studies, there is strong evidence that evolution by
> > natural selection is a universal law wherever abiogenesis first occurs.
>
> > And that means that complex life can evolve eventually.
>

> Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I missed
> you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that light.

Remember that the words of the twit who wrote the two lines
immediately above are not to be trusted. His utterly false and
baseless claim that I am a creationist is typical of his imagination-
impoverished treatment of me and perhaps of others.

His only attempt (ahem) at supporting this ridiculous claim was the
patently absurd statement that I show that I am a creationist with
every post I do. That gives you some idea of how impoverished his
imagination is -- that formulaic bot is the "lowest common
denominator" kind of 'support' that Internet Vandals mindlessly crank
out.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 9:22 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:12:57 -0400, "Steven L."
>

> <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [...]

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >The Drake Equation includes factors from astronomy, biochemistry, and
> >biology.
>
> >We can have a serious discussion about the astronomical factors, since
> >we can observe the universe from right here on Earth.
>
> >We *might* have some discussion about the biochemistry factor--which
> >planets are suitable for life--as we learn more about the planet Mars.
>

> >But the moment we get to the biology factors, we're screwed.  Because we
> >have only ONE data point, Earth biology and its history.  It's useless

> >to try to form sweeping conjectures about life in the Galaxy from just
> >one data point.
>

> >Real evidence for the Drake Equation will have to wait until real
> >evidence appears about life on other planets.  Until then, any
> >speculation about extraterrestrial life remains thinly veiled science
> >fiction.
>

> Does the Earth really represent just one datum in this context?  The

> Earth provides multiple environments, and there are a variety of
> extremophiles thriving in environments once thought inhospitable to
> any kind of life:

A very good point.

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile>
>
> Long, long ago, I was taught that all life on Earth depends on energy
> from the Sun.  We now know of several exceptions to that rule.  With
> the information from planetary probes over the last 50 years, we also
> know of several planets which provide energy sources besides the Sun.

Jupiter is a source of intense radiation due to its magnetic belts,
but the kind of radiation essential (in the long run, anyway) to life
as we know it, is not given out by Jupiter to any marked extent.

> ISTM these facts increase the chances of other life-supporting planets
> existing around not just our Sun but other stars as well.

There is a big difference between supporting life, once started, and
starting life. That is why there is such a huge range of uncertainty
in the factor in the Drake equation just before the one I am expanding
on this thread.

That is f_ℓ = the fraction of planets suitable for supporting life
that actually go on to develop life at some point

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 9:34�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote

> (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvkgglssdp3l34t0n...@4ax.com>):
>
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> > <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > <snip.

>
> >> Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I
> >> missed
> >> you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that light.
>

> > Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
> > that word. �He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>
> Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the original
> whatever came from,

Like I said, the word of this twit O'Shea is not to be trusted. I
have consistently and repeatedly written that my hypothesis includes
the paspermists having evolved from unicellular life that was the
result of a less-than-once-in-a-galaxy fluke of abiogenesis.

I do believe O'Shea knows this, but is just trying to "yank my
chain". And as long as there are people in t.o. who honestly think I
"beg the question of where the original whatever came from," I'm
afraid I'll have to respond to yanks on this particular chain.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 9:24�am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>
> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> <snip.
>
>
>
> >Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I missed
> >you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that light.
>
> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
> that word. �He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.

I never was a creationist in the usual sense of the word after I
turned 7 and became fascinated by the episode "The Pageant of Life"
in the _Life_ magazine series "The World We Live In." The series was
made into a book shortly thereafter. I bought a copy in a secondhand
bookstore almost thirty years ago, and I can still lose myself in it.

Panspermia, especially directed panspermia, is a very different thing,
hypothesizing the intervention of intelligent creatures no higher than
our level of development. In fact, humans may some day become
panspermists.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 10:01�am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
>
> news:k12n4...@news3.newsguy.com...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
> > (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvkgglssdp3l34t0n...@4ax.com>):
>

> > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> > > <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > > <snip.
>
> > >> Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I
> > >> missed
> > >> you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that light.
>
> > > Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
> > > that word. �He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>

> > Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the original

> > whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a
> > creationist, just a sneaky one.
>

> Questions of where the "original whatever came from" is not a logical fallacy,

> it is a natural consequence of science, that one conclusion leads to more

> questions. How many years have you been using this lame argument? Panspermia is

> a real hypothesis, not "creationism in drag".

Gosh, you mean O'Shea has been at this for more than a few months?
Oh, wait, I get it: you are including the Arrhenius-Hoyle-
Wickramasinghe hypothesis of undirected panspermia, championed a while
back in talk.origins by Brig Klyce.

So in the few months that O'Shea's fastened himself to me like a
leech, he's been trying to fit a square peg into the round hole of
directed panspermia, eh?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 11:57�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:50:23 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
> (in article <kro938hqb6ejpg9772rh47v3vhmp3go...@4ax.com>):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:34:17 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"

> > <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
> >> (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvkgglssdp3l34t0n...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>> <snip.
>
> >>>> Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I
> >>>> missed
> >>>> you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that
> >>>> light.
>
> >>> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
> >>> that word. �He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>
> >> Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the original
> >> whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a
> >> creationist, just a sneaky one.
>

> > He is perhaps sneaky about the origin of life but seems to accept
> > evolution on earth from that point on.
>
> That just makes him an OEC.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 9:50�am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:34:17 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
> >(in article <q8n938dtipku59mvkgglssdp3l34t0n...@4ax.com>):
>
> >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >> <snip.
>
> >>> Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I
> >>> missed
> >>> you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that light.
>
> >> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
> >> that word. �He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>
> >Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the original
> >whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that.

That last bit, which I deleted in my own reply to O'Shea's stream of
falsehoods, is a bare-faced lie. But then, I believe O'Shea would
quickly become bored if he didn't have such juicy whoppers with which
to spice up his daily routine.

> >He's a
> >creationist, just a sneaky one.

Yet another typical juicy O'Shea whopper.

> He is perhaps sneaky about the origin of life but seems to accept
> evolution on earth from that point on.

Not sneaky at all. Open and aboveboard. See my reply to O'Shea a few
minutes ago, and the one to you immediately before that.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 12:33�pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 6:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > The Drake equation is an abstract equation used to guide estimates of
> > the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky
> > Way galaxy. This number equals the product of a number of factors,
> > all of which are uncertain to greater or lesser degree. One of the
> > most uncertain, and of special interest to talk.origins is:
>
> > f_i: the fraction of planets where life has begun, that
> > go on to develop intelligent life
>
> > It is also "particularly controversial" according to the Wikipedia
> > entry.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
>

> > There are many stages in the process from "life has begun" to
> > "intelligent life", and I suggest that we discuss the following
> > factorization of f_i:
>
> > f_i = f_i1 * f_i2 * f_i3 * f_i4 * f_i5 *f_i6
>
> > where f_in represents the fraction of planets that progress from stage
> > n to stage n+1. Here are representative earth organisms for each
> > stage I envision:
>
> > 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
>
> > Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*
>

> > There is some flexibility in deciding where each stage begins, but it
> > is important to be clear about one's decision since that will affect
> > the fraction involved. [Though is shouldn't affect the final product.]
>
> > Here is a general description of the first stage as I envision it:
>
> > Stage 1: Efficient replicators and metabolizers.
>
> > 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.
> > Metabolization says that more than just a genome is involved. The
> > organism grows by taking nutrients from the environment and
> > incorporating them into its structure, which includes other things
> > besides the genome.
>

> > In my next post I will give general descriptions of the other five

> > stages. I would be interested in hearing from readers how easy or

> > hard they think it is to progress from one stage to the next, and why.
>

> There is absolutely nothing sound about this 'equation'.

Spoken like a true creationist.

By the way, UC, which of the several feminine names you've pinned to
yourself is the real one? Or are you keeping your real name a secret.

Peter Nyikos

[Richard Norman]

"Doesn't seem to be" is just because I can't see into your heart.
However nothing that I have ever read in your posts here suggests
anything other than that you support biological evolution completely.

It is strange how people here jump all over creationists (the "real"
ones) for merging abiogenesis with evolution. Here we have someone
jumping all over you for separating the two processes.

[UC]

All of this is totally useless speculation.

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:55:03 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The likelihood of encountering other intelligent life is millions of
>orders of magnitude less than people imagine.

You don't understand anything quantitative about anything at all as
demonstrated by this statement. There is nothing in the physical
universe that exceed a few hundred orders of magnitude and very little
exceeds even one hundred (a googol).

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 1:12�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ernest Major" <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:0RsCC8PO...@meden.invalid...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message <pp2a381vh5ch6t015tnt49chl9sem0u...@4ax.com>, jillery
> > <69jpi...@gmail.com> writes

> > >On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman

> > ><r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >>On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> > >><try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> > >><snip.
>
> > >>>Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I
> missed
> > >>>you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that light.
>
> > >>Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
> > >>that word. �He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>

> > >Incorrect. �He asserts directed panspermia, with expressed skepticism
> > >of natural forces likely to produce abiogenesis on Earth.
>
> > In itself, that still doesn't make him a creationist.

> > --
>
> Not in the "usual" sense of the word.

Not even in Okimoto's sense of the word, on which jillery and O'Shea
are sold.

If you expand the sense much further, you get Mark Isaak's sense in
which evolutionists are creationists because they believe in the
creative force of evolution. Evolution is a designer in his lingo,
you see.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 12:45�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <pp2a381vh5ch6t015tnt49chl9sem0u...@4ax.com>, jillery
> <69jpi...@gmail.com> writes

> >>Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
> >>that word. �He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>
> >Incorrect. �He asserts directed panspermia,

...which I used to spell "panspermy" to further distance myself from
the Arrhenius et. al. variety.

> > with expressed skepticism
> >of natural forces likely to produce abiogenesis on Earth.
>
> In itself, that still doesn't make him a creationist.

And besides, it is a half-truth. See my own reply to jillery's post a
few minutes ago.

I say "jillery's post" rather than "jillery" because 'e has me
killfiled. Couldn't stand the heat, got out of the kitchen, still
keeps getting secondhand stuff from it.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 12:39�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman
>
> <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> ><try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> ><snip.
>
> >>Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I missed
> >>you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that light.
>

> >Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
> >that word. �He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>

> Incorrect. �He asserts directed panspermia, with expressed skepticism

> of natural forces likely to produce abiogenesis on Earth.

Or anywhere else. But in a near-infinity of universes, anything that
can happen is very likely to happen, and the Great Abiogenesis Fluke
occurred somewhere--that much seems very likely inasmuch as the
existence of a supernatural creator does not seem likely.

Still, I nurture a hope that the odds against a supernatural creator
can be beaten, somewhat as the odds against life in any given galaxy
[high, IMHO] HAVE been beaten by the Milky Way.

Of course, anyone who understands the reasoning behind the Anthropic
Principle can see the Apples and Oranges nature of the preceding
sentence.

And still, I hope. Especially on behalf of the innumerable people on
this planet whose lives have been full of suffering, more than for
myself. I have lived a rich and happy life, and the comparatively few
mishaps I've had do not change that.

Peter Nyikos

[UC]

Creationist? ME??? What?

[Richard Norman]

Interesting that our expert here on words and their usage and meaning
fails completely to distinguish "spoken like" from "spoken as".

[UC]

On Aug 22, 4:40�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:55:03 -0700 (PDT), UC
>

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The likelihood of encountering other intelligent life is millions of
> >orders of magnitude less than people imagine.
>
> You don't understand anything quantitative about anything at all as
> demonstrated by this statement. �There is nothing in the physical
> universe that exceed a few hundred orders of magnitude and very little
> exceeds even one hundred (a googol).

Right, that's exactly why I said it that way. That means there is NO
chance.

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 1:32�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:48:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

>
> >The Drake equation is an abstract equation used to guide estimates of
> >the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky
> >Way galaxy. �This number equals the product of a number of factors,
> >all of which are uncertain to greater or lesser degree.
>

> Everything in the Drake Equation beyond the number of stars
> ( and now, *very* tentatively, the number of Earthlike
> planets) in the galaxy is nothing more than a WAG (not even
> a SWAG), since we have a data sample of exactly *one
> planet*, and exactly no way to tell if conditions and
> results here are very common, fairly common, or wildly
> unlikely. This is a classic case of theorizing in advance of
> the data.

As is theoretical physics. Look up "string theory," for example.

Also, black holes and neutron stars were examples that hit pay dirt
after a lot of advance theorizing.

[UC]

It is unreasonable to contemplate even the slimmest possibility of
encountering other intelligent life. If it occurs, it is so rare and
so far away in space and time as to be for all practical purposes, nil.

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 3:43�am, "Mike Dworetsky"
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

> pnyikos wrote:
> > The Drake equation is an abstract equation used to guide estimates of
> > the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky
> > Way galaxy. �This number equals the product of a number of factors,

> > all of which are uncertain to greater or lesser degree. �One of the

> Before unnecessarily complicating the situation, perhaps you could first
> give some serious thought to the reasons that Frank Drake (IMHO a very
> intelligent and perceptive person) came up with a simple formula in which
> each of the factors was something that could be clearly expressed in a short
> sentence*, rather than a long complicated meander about factors about which
> we know little or nothing when applied to life elsewhere.

Well, that's why I started out by giving earth organisms typical of
each stage before diving into a more general set of descriptions.
Note how each one takes up less than a line.

Do you see anything to criticize in my general descriptions, besides
their length? If so, please let me know. I'm always looking for ways
to improve them.

> *Even if, as it turned out, some of the factors require vast amounts of
> research, such as the fraction of habitable planets.

Yes, but we are getting better at it. One of the big unknown factors
which I hope will be reasonably well understood in my lifetime is:
what fraction of stars with roughly Jupiter-sized [within a factor of
about 20 in mass] planets have those planets in close-to-circular
orbits?

It makes little difference whether they are as far from the sun as
Jupiter, or as close as Earth. The real issue is: if they are in the
Goldilocks zone, do they have satellites or Trojan co-orbitals that
are of the right size to support 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

> Mike Dworetsky
>
> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:45:10 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Aug 22, 1:32�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:48:19 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >The Drake equation is an abstract equation used to guide estimates of
>> >the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky
>> >Way galaxy. �This number equals the product of a number of factors,
>> >all of which are uncertain to greater or lesser degree.
>>
>> Everything in the Drake Equation beyond the number of stars
>> ( and now, *very* tentatively, the number of Earthlike
>> planets) in the galaxy is nothing more than a WAG (not even
>> a SWAG), since we have a data sample of exactly *one
>> planet*, and exactly no way to tell if conditions and
>> results here are very common, fairly common, or wildly
>> unlikely. This is a classic case of theorizing in advance of
>> the data.
>
>As is theoretical physics. Look up "string theory," for example.
>
>Also, black holes and neutron stars were examples that hit pay dirt
>after a lot of advance theorizing.
>

Also, what was the data that caused Maxwell to introduce the notion of
displacement current and then deduce the wave equation for
electromagnetism?

[Richard Norman]

There is just a bit of difference between the possibility of
intelligent life in the universe and the possibility of our
encountering it, not to mention between encountering it and detecting
it. You are right about the practical implications unless they find
us first.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/22/12 9:08 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <k12n4...@news3.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> writes
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>> (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvk...@4ax.com>):

>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
>>> that word. He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>>

>> Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the
>> original

>> whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a

>> creationist, just a sneaky one.
>>

> His espousal of panspermia is not grounds for inferring that he is a
> creationist.

His espousal of panspermia, combined with his reflexive support for
"irreducible complexity", is grounds for inferring that he is a
creationist. At the very least, he is close enough that the difference
is too small to matter.

--
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

[pnyikos]

On Aug 22, 8:45�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:12:57 -0400, Steven L. wrote
> (in article <ypKdnbfyKa98UanNnZ2dnUVZ_qadn...@earthlink.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/21/2012 6:48 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> >> The Drake equation is an abstract equation used to guide estimates of
> >> the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky
> >> Way galaxy. �This number equals the product of a number of factors,

> > The Drake Equation includes factors from astronomy, biochemistry, and
> > biology.
>
> > We can have a serious discussion about the astronomical factors, since
> > we can observe the universe from right here on Earth.
>

> And some predictions made back when the DE was new have been confirmed.

>
>
>
> > We *might* have some discussion about the biochemistry factor--which
> > planets are suitable for life--as we learn more about the planet Mars.
>

> Mars, smars. Me want probes sent to Jovian subsystem. Me want probes to the
> Saturnian subsystem. Me stop here, despite the ease of making jokes about
> probes to the seventh planet's subsystem. See the episodes of
> <http://www.gocomics.com/brewsterrockit> which feature <name redacted 'cause
> even I don't go that far> of Uranus.
>
> And, oh, yeah, Pluto is a planet, suitable for up-close and personal
> exploration by members of certain IAU committees and creationists of all
> types. I'll even help pay for the trip... one way.

>
>
>
> > But the moment we get to the biology factors, we're screwed. �Because we
> > have only ONE data point, Earth biology and its history. �It's useless
> > to try to form sweeping conjectures about life in the Galaxy from just
> > one data point.
>
> > Real evidence for the Drake Equation will have to wait until real
> > evidence appears about life on other planets. �Until then, any
> > speculation about extraterrestrial life remains thinly veiled science
> > fiction.

I have critiqued the above post directly, and commented on it again in
my reply to the post Steve L. made immediately thereafter.

> Not veiled at all, IMHO.

You misspelled "IMUO" ["In My Umble Opinion", a la Uriah Heep.]

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

On Aug 22, 3:21�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 8/22/12 9:08 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>

> > In message <k12n4q11...@news3.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea
> > <try.not...@but.see.sig> writes

> >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote

> >> (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvkgglssdp3l34t0n...@4ax.com>):

>
> >>> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
> >>> that word. �He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>
> >> Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the
> >> original
> >> whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a
> >> creationist, just a sneaky one.
>
> > His espousal of panspermia is not grounds for inferring that he is a
> > creationist.
>
> His espousal of panspermia, combined with his reflexive support for
> "irreducible complexity", is grounds for inferring that he is a
> creationist. �At the very least, he is close enough that the difference
> is too small to matter.
>

Ridiculous, Mark.

Directed Panspermia indicates Darwinism, not Creationism. Peter Nyikos
exists under the wings of Crick & Orgel, that is, two Atheist-
Evolutionists who originated DPism based on the sober conclusion that
abiogenesis is impossible.

Crediting space aliens with Biological First Cause (LOL), as opposed
to God, is Atheism, not Deism or Theism or Creationism.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Aug 21, 5:22 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 7:45 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:09:58 PM UTC-6, pnyikos wrote:
> > > On Aug 21, 6:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>

> > > > There are many stages in the process from "life has begun" to
> > > > "intelligent life", and I suggest that we discuss the following
> > > > factorization of f_i:
>
> > > > f_i = f_i1 * f_i2 * f_i3 * f_i4 * f_i5 *f_i6
>
> > > > where f_in represents the fraction of planets that progress from stage
> > > > n to stage n+1. Here are representative earth organisms for each
> > > > stage I envision:
>
> > > > 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
>
> > > > Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*
>

> > > [snip general description of Stage 1]
>

> A general description of the remaining stages follows:

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

> > > nyikos @ math.sc.edu

>
> > > > I would be interested in hearing from readers how easy or
> > > > hard they think it is to progress from one stage to the next, and why.
>

> > An example of 20/20 hindsight.
>

> What is?

>
> > I have often wondered why anybody bothers
> > with the Drake equation.  Based on our current knowledge of biology,
> > the Drake equation is no more useful than Bode's Law.
>

> > -John
>
> Apples and oranges.  Bode's "law" [a.k.a. the Bode-Titius law] has
> been falsified.  OTOH the Drake equation is simply a way of isolating
> what are the biggest unknowns and getting reasonable estimates for
> some of the other factors.
>
> The Drake equation has the following ingredients.  On the left hand
> side we have:
>
>     N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which
> communication might be possible;
>

Peter: Can I interrupt your science fiction fantasy with one brute
fact from reality? Your colleagues over at JPL have yet to find even
one extremophile on Mars, yet your presuppositions have entire
civilizations of intelligent life existing in other regions of our
galaxy!

Ray

> and on the other side we have the product of the following factors:
>
>     R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
>     fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
>     ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support
> life per star that has planets
>     fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life
> at some point
>     fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop
> intelligent life
>     fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that
> releases detectable signs of their existence into space
>     L = the length of time for which such civilizations release
> detectable signals into space[5]
>
> R* has been estimated to be 1 for our galaxy in an article I read a
> few days ago, which talked about a super-fecund galaxy where R* is
> several hundred.  Of course, it is the value in our galaxy that is of
> use to us.
>
> The next two factors are also subject to only a few orders of
> magnitude of uncertainty, as is f_c if we use the general description
> I gave for Stage 7,  while the uncertainty of  f_i involves a great
> many orders of magnitude.
>
> I thought it would be helpful to isolate some of the factors in f_i,
> especially since I think we have good grounds for thinking f_5 is not
> too high, but f_1 and f_2 are particularly difficult to estimate.
> That's why, although I think numerical estmates are a lot of fun, I am
> mainly interested in analyses of what could drive the value of one of
> the new f's up or down, and the uncertainty of each new f that results
> from these analyses.

[jonathan]

"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:c587473e-8a67-495e...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

> On Aug 21, 7:45� pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:09:58 PM UTC-6, pnyikos wrote:
>> > On Aug 21, 6:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > There are many stages in the process from "life has begun" to
>> > > "intelligent life", and I suggest that we discuss the following
>> > > factorization of f_i:

Just for the fun of it, let's try to answer this question in an
entirely different way, from the perspective of a naturalist.
Where the overall or holistic properties are enough to come
to a conclusion. Where it's enough to state and accept the
obvious.

Just a couple of observations...

At about 2.4 billion years ago the great oxygenation event
occurred, which was when biologically induced oxygen
collected in the Earth's atmosphere in quantity. This event
is also called the great...rusting event. And led to the
deposition of the famous banded iron formations.
Dusting the surface of the Earth with iron.

We've only taken a good look at two habitable
planets, Earth of course and now Mars.

The iron at Meridiani on Mars, at the Opportunity Rover
site, isn't in the soil, the iron isn't in the rocks. The iron
is almost entirely held within these things....
http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG


What color is Mars?

We can see 'evidence' of life elsewhere
from our backyard even on a hazy night
Mars is so red. It's obvious life was there
to the naked eye. So it's obvious life is
everywhere it can be.

If the 'evidence' we have is that the ...only two places
the first two places we've looked for life elsewhere
....has life, then what does that do to the Drake
Equation? Who needs it?

In the words of my favorite naturalist, and what
she thought about reductionist notions like equations
and proof when it comes to questions about nature.



Their height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I 'm finite, I can't see.

The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.

The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes

Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."



By E Dickinson



s

[UC]

On Aug 22, 4:40�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:55:03 -0700 (PDT), UC
>

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The likelihood of encountering other intelligent life is millions of
> >orders of magnitude less than people imagine.
>
> You don't understand anything quantitative about anything at all as
> demonstrated by this statement. �There is nothing in the physical
> universe that exceed a few hundred orders of magnitude and very little
> exceeds even one hundred (a googol).

All the protons in the universe would decay before we would see any
other intelligent race (extraterrestrial).

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:22:01 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<198882ed-a4e7-419e...@e29g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 22, 11:57ï¿œam, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:50:23 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>> (in article <kro938hqb6ejpg9772rh47v3vhmp3go...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:34:17 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>>>> (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvkgglssdp3l34t0n...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>>> <snip.
>>
>>>>>> Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I
>>>>>> missed
>>>>>> you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that
>>>>>> light.
>>
>>>>> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of

>>>>> that word. ï¿œHe argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.

>>
>>>> Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the
>>>> original
>>>> whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a
>>>> creationist, just a sneaky one.
>>
>>> He is perhaps sneaky about the origin of life but seems to accept
>>> evolution on earth from that point on.
>>
>> That just makes him an OEC.
>
> Garbage in, garbage out.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

Hi, Pete!

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:37:30 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
(in article <mk9a38h49nhqv2dl5...@4ax.com>):

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:59:47 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:49:11 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>> (in article <tr6a38d3u8mtamr6v...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:34:10 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:08:57 -0400, Ernest Major wrote
>>>> (in article <khpGe1MZ...@meden.invalid>):

>>>>
>>>>> In message <k12n4...@news3.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea
>>>>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> writes

>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote

>>>>>> (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvk...@4ax.com>):

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>>>>>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I
>>>>>>>> missed
>>>>>>>> you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that
>>>>>>>> light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of

>>>>>>> that word. He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the
>>>>>> original
>>>>>> whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a
>>>>>> creationist, just a sneaky one.
>>>>>>

>>>>> His espousal of panspermia is not grounds for inferring that he is a
>>>>> creationist.
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> Depends on whether you think that panspermia is merely warmed over OEC. I
>>>> do.
>>>
>>> So you would call Orgel and Crick creationists? I think few would
>>> agree.
>>>
>>
>> Depends. Where they _directed_ panspermists, like Pete? If so, yep. If
>> not...
>> more data needed.
>
> The title of their paper is, in fact, "Directed Panspermia"
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248
>
> So you say they are creationists.

Yep.

> That means you use the term
> differently from the rest of the known universe.
>

Whatever.

[Richard Norman]

What about a rather stupid race?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:09:10 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<ae21de40-b8c5-470f...@t4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>):

> Like I said, the word of this twit O'Shea is not to be trusted.

Damn, Pete, and after I went and defended you from the Language Guy, too. You
wound me, deeply... or you would if I actually gave a damn about anything you
post, given that you are, after all, a creationist.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:43:31 -0400, jillery wrote
(in article <2t9a38l6mqgsd5bpu...@4ax.com>):

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:40:19 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:40:42 -0400, jillery wrote
>> (in article <5q2a38911kv078un6...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:45:55 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:22:36 -0400, jillery wrote
>>>> (in article <d8m9381hkb4tudkph...@4ax.com>):

>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:12:57 -0400, "Steven L."

>>>>> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Drake Equation includes factors from astronomy, biochemistry, and
>>>>>> biology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can have a serious discussion about the astronomical factors, since
>>>>>> we can observe the universe from right here on Earth.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> We *might* have some discussion about the biochemistry factor--which
>>>>>> planets are suitable for life--as we learn more about the planet Mars.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> But the moment we get to the biology factors, we're screwed. Because
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> have only ONE data point, Earth biology and its history. It's useless
>>>>>> to try to form sweeping conjectures about life in the Galaxy from just
>>>>>> one data point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Real evidence for the Drake Equation will have to wait until real
>>>>>> evidence appears about life on other planets. Until then, any
>>>>>> speculation about extraterrestrial life remains thinly veiled science
>>>>>> fiction.
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> Does the Earth really represent just one datum in this context?
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Things like gravity, radiation, and the available mix of minerals
>>>> see
>>>> to
>>>> that. Jupiter and the Jovian subsystem have _radically_ differing
>>>> environments for all three of those.
>>>
>>>
>>> No need to focus on just Jupiter.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>> Earth provides multiple environments, and there are a variety of
>>>>> extremophiles thriving in environments once thought inhospitable to
>>>>> any kind of life:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile>
>>>>>
>>>>> Long, long ago, I was taught that all life on Earth depends on energy
>>>>> from the Sun. We now know of several exceptions to that rule. With
>>>>> the information from planetary probes over the last 50 years, we also
>>>>> know of several planets which provide energy sources besides the Sun.
>>>>> ISTM these facts increase the chances of other life-supporting planets
>>>>> existing around not just our Sun but other stars as well.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing which can survive on Earth is at all likely to be able to survive
>>>> on
>>>> Jupiter. Earth's one data point. Lots of subdivisions, but still just
>>>> one.
>>>> Mars would be an expansion of Earth's data point, 'cause a case can be
>>>> made
>>>> for some examples of life on Earth surviving on Mars, which is, after
>>>> all,
>>>> an
>>>> Earth-like, small, rocky object with a relatively thin (okay, very thin
>>>> in
>>>> Mars' case) atmosphere. A case could even be made for life on Venus, even
>>>> if
>>>> the atmosphere there has non-trivial pressure. Jupiter, Saturn, some of
>>>> their
>>>> satellites, that's different. Pluto is right out.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Wiki article specifically mentions extremophiles that survive the
>>> simulated conditions of Mars. And what of Jupiter's moon Europa? Or
>>> Saturn's moon Enceladus? Both demonstrate thermal gradients due to
>>> gravitational stretching, sufficiently energetic to recycle their
>>> entire surfaces. Plenty of energy there to fuel life forces.
>>
>> And they're both a lot closer to Mars and Earth in their general conditions
>> than to the surface of Jupiter itself.
>
>
> To say that Enceladus and Europa have conditions generally similar to
> Earth stretches your point beyond credibility. I don't see how
> comparisons to Jupiter makes any difference here.
>
>
>>> You and I seem to have very different understanding of what qualifies
>>> as a 'point'. If you insist that Earth is only one datum, I hope you
>>> will at least acknowledge that datum is very different than it was
>>> just 50 years ago.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, there's no doubt that there is a much wider range of environments here
>> on
>> Earth than was thought of only a few years ago. They're still nowhere near
>> the kind of environments found even at the bottom of the atmosphere of
>> Venus,
>> much less those in a gas giant. The radiation levels alone would see to
>> that.
>
>
> I don't understand why you're so focused on Jupiter and other gas
> giants. Even assuming your assertion is correct, I don't see how that
> can be generalized to the rest of the Solar System, or to other
> planetary systems.
>

How many gas giants are there in the Solar System? How many total planets are
there?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:24:49 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<4cb2a6fc-cb54-42d9...@z4g2000vby.googlegroups.com>):

> On Aug 22, 12:33ï¿œpm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 6:48 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> The Drake equation is an abstract equation used to guide estimates of
>>> the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky
>>> Way galaxy. This number equals the product of a number of factors,
>>> all of which are uncertain to greater or lesser degree. One of the
>>> most uncertain, and of special interest to talk.origins is:
>>
>>> f_i: the fraction of planets where life has begun, that

>>> go on to develop intelligent life
>>

>>> It is also "particularly controversial" according to the Wikipedia
>>> entry.
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
>>

>>> There are many stages in the process from "life has begun" to
>>> "intelligent life", and I suggest that we discuss the following
>>> factorization of f_i:
>>

>>> f_i = f_i1 * f_i2 * f_i3 * f_i4 * f_i5 *f_i6
>>
>>> where f_in represents the fraction of planets that progress from stage
>>> n to stage n+1. Here are representative earth organisms for each
>>> stage I envision:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>> Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*
>>

>>> There is some flexibility in deciding where each stage begins, but it
>>> is important to be clear about one's decision since that will affect
>>> the fraction involved. [Though is shouldn't affect the final product.]
>>
>>> Here is a general description of the first stage as I envision it:
>>
>>> Stage 1: Efficient replicators and metabolizers.
>>
>>> 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.
>>> Metabolization says that more than just a genome is involved. The
>>> organism grows by taking nutrients from the environment and
>>> incorporating them into its structure, which includes other things
>>> besides the genome.
>>

>>> In my next post I will give general descriptions of the other five
>>> stages. I would be interested in hearing from readers how easy or

>>> hard they think it is to progress from one stage to the next, and why.
>>

>> There is absolutely nothing sound about this 'equation'.
>
> Spoken like a true creationist.

He's not a creationist.

He is, however, a loon.

>
> By the way, UC, which of the several feminine names you've pinned to
> yourself is the real one? Or are you keeping your real name a secret.

He says he's the Uranium Committee. he also says that he's not a mammal, or
even a vertebrate. I say that he's nuts.

>
> Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:59:10 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
(in article <3vha38d7fdos7jho2...@4ax.com>):

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:52:07 -0700 (PDT), UC
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>>> yourself is the real one? ï¿œOr are you keeping your real name a secret.

>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>> Creationist? ME??? What?
>
> Interesting that our expert here on words and their usage and meaning
> fails completely to distinguish "spoken like" from "spoken as".
>

Well, he _is_ a Language Guy. Screwing up language is his thing.

[UC]

On Aug 22, 10:14�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:59:10 -0400, Richard Norman wrote

> (in article <3vha38d7fdos7jho2ghhe9lbcqso2rm...@4ax.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:52:07 -0700 (PDT), UC

> > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>> yourself is the real one? Or are you keeping your real name a secret.

>
> >>> Peter Nyikos
>
> >> Creationist? ME??? What?
>
> > Interesting that our expert here on words and their usage and meaning
> > fails completely to distinguish "spoken like" from "spoken as".
>
> Well, he _is_ a Language Guy. Screwing up language is his thing.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

I did not write 'spoken like'. Someone else did.

[Glenn]

"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:u64b38hm4280qo3el...@4ax.com...

They who wear sacks?

[Richard Norman]

But you did read it and misinterpreted what it meant.

[Glenn]

"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:3vha38d7fdos7jho2...@4ax.com...

That UC assumed Peter was labeling him as a creationist is not unreasonable nor
particularly indicative of a problem with word meaning. If it quacks like a
duck...it probably is a duck. It is possible that Peter does think UC is a
creationist. I don't see enough context to convince me that Peter did not intend
to label UC as a creationist. Characterizing the association as being a "true"
creationist should be considered as context suggestive of actually supporting
the implication that Peter thinks UC is a creationist.

[Glenn]

"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:4p6b38hvc5qhcp0v1...@4ax.com...

Or perhaps you are misrepresenting what Peter meant.

[UC]

On Aug 22, 10:37�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Richard Norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:11:22 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"

You're not making any sense here. Last time I counted there are four
gas giant planets. I see no reason to exclude the moons around those
planets in this discussion, which means gas giants are in the
minority. But even if there were only two non-gas-giant bodies in the
Solar System, how does their existence preclude life on either or
both?

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:21:46 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 8/22/12 9:08 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message <k12n4...@news3.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea
>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> writes
>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>>> (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvk...@4ax.com>):
>>>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
>>>> that word. He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>>>
>>> Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the
>>> original
>>> whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a
>>> creationist, just a sneaky one.
>>>
>> His espousal of panspermia is not grounds for inferring that he is a
>> creationist.
>
>His espousal of panspermia, combined with his reflexive support for
>"irreducible complexity", is grounds for inferring that he is a
>creationist. At the very least, he is close enough that the difference
>is too small to matter.

Both Irreducible Complexity and directed panspermia are used as
arguments by those who argue for Intelligent Design.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7s7b385ie22s98v6p...@4ax.com...

I'm surprised that no one has suspected you groupers of being fish with fingers.

[Burkhard]

On Aug 23, 4:52 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:7s7b385ie22s98v6p...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:21:46 -0700, Mark Isaak
> > <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
> > >On 8/22/12 9:08 AM, Ernest Major wrote:

> > >> In message <k12n4q11...@news3.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea

> > >> <try.not...@but.see.sig> writes

> > >>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote

> > >>> (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvkgglssdp3l34t0n...@4ax.com>):

>
> > >>>> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
> > >>>> that word.  He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>
> > >>> Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the
> > >>> original
> > >>> whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a
> > >>> creationist, just a sneaky one.
>
> > >> His espousal of panspermia is not grounds for inferring that he is a
> > >> creationist.
>
> > >His espousal of panspermia, combined with his reflexive support for
> > >"irreducible complexity", is grounds for inferring that he is a
> > >creationist.  At the very least, he is close enough that the difference
> > >is too small to matter.
>
> > Both Irreducible Complexity and directed panspermia are used as
> > arguments by those who argue for Intelligent Design.
>
> I'm surprised that no one has suspected you groupers of being fish with fingers.

Do you like fishsticks?

[Nick Keighley]

On Aug 22, 6:34 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:08:57 -0400, Ernest Major wrote

> (in article <khpGe1MZQQNQF...@meden.invalid>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > In message <k12n4q11...@news3.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea
> > <try.not...@but.see.sig> writes
> >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
> >> (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvkgglssdp3l34t0n...@4ax.com>):
>

> >>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>> <snip.
>
> >>>> Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I
> >>>> missed
> >>>> you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that
> >>>> light.
>

> >>> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
> >>> that word.  He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>
> >> Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the original
> >> whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a
> >> creationist, just a sneaky one.
>
> > His espousal of panspermia is not grounds for inferring that he is a
> > creationist.
>

> Depends on whether you think that panspermia is merely warmed over OEC. I do.

and black is white

[Nick Keighley]

On Aug 22, 6:33 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:09:59 -0400, Glenn wrote
> (in article <glennsheldon-k133ug$kg...@dont-email.me>):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
> >news:k12vp...@news4.newsguy.com...
> >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:01:30 -0400, Glenn wrote
> >> (in article <glennsheldon-k12ot3$cq...@dont-email.me>):
>
> >>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
> >>>news:k12n4...@news3.newsguy.com...

> >>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
> >>>> (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvkgglssdp3l34t0n...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> >>>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>>>> <snip.
>
> >>>>>> Remember that the OP on this thread is Peter N (Welcome back, Pete, I
> >>>>>> missed
> >>>>>> you!) and that he's a creationist. Evaluate all of his posts in that
> >>>>>> light.
>
> >>>>> Peter Nyikos does not seem to be a creationist in the usual sense of
> >>>>> that word.  He argues panspermia which is a rather different thing.
>
> >>>> Nah, that's creationism in drag. It begs the question of where the
> >>>> original
> >>>> whatever came from, and he's really coy about answering that. He's a
> >>>> creationist, just a sneaky one.
>

> >>> Questions of where the "original whatever came from" is not a logical
> >> fallacy,
>
> >> I didn't say it was.
>
> > You used it as such.
>
> Nope.
>
>
>
> >>> it is a natural consequence of science, that one conclusion leads to more
> >>> questions. How many years have you been using this lame argument?
>
> >> You appear to have generated a straw man argument in order to attack it.
>
> > And here you unwittingly demonstrate deceit. If my interpretation is a
> > strawman,
> > your "beg the question of" was a logical fallacy. Why hide what you clearly
> > meant?
>
> I didn't.
>
>
>
> >>> Panspermia
> >>> is
> >>> a real hypothesis, not "creationism in drag".
>
> >> Nah, it's creationism in drag. Damn ugly drag, too.
>
> > So panspermia is creationism in your book.
>
> That would be what I said. Twice.

sounds like complete nonsense. panspermia isn't creationism.

> > How enlightening.
>
> Glad I could help.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Nick Keighley]

On Aug 22, 9:34 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 12:39 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > [...] [Peter Nyikos] asserts directed panspermia, with expressed skepticism
> > of natural forces likely to produce abiogenesis on Earth.
>
> Or anywhere else.  But in a near-infinity of universes, anything that
> can happen is very likely to happen, and the Great Abiogenesis Fluke
> occurred somewhere

don't see how that helps unless you hypothesise inter-universe travel

> --that much seems very likely inasmuch as the
> existence of a supernatural creator does not seem likely.

how do you calculate these probabilities?

> Still, I nurture a hope that the odds against a supernatural creator
> can be beaten, somewhat as the odds against life in any given galaxy
> [high, IMHO] HAVE been beaten by the Milky Way.
>
> Of course, anyone who understands the reasoning behind the Anthropic
> Principle can see the Apples and Oranges nature of the preceding
> sentence.

could you expandon that?

> And still, I hope. Especially on behalf of the innumerable people on
> this planet whose lives have been full of suffering, more than for
> myself.  I have lived a rich and happy life, and the comparatively few
> mishaps I've had do not change that.

why would those suffereing people give a rats ass about directed
panspermia?

[walksalone]

Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:ab95d02c-8f8c-4b2f...@13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:

> On Aug 22, 6:33�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:09:59 -0400, Glenn wrote
>> (in article <glennsheldon-k133ug$kg...@dont-email.me>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
>> >news:k12vp...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:01:30 -0400, Glenn wrote
>> >> (in article <glennsheldon-k12ot3$cq...@dont-email.me>):
>>
>> >>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote in message
>> >>>news:k12n4...@news3.newsguy.com...
>> >>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:24:42 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>> >>>> (in article <q8n938dtipku59mvkgglssdp3l34t0n...@4ax.com>):
>>
>> >>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:35:26 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>> >>>>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:

snip, small, each, 1.

>> >> Nah, it's creationism in drag. Damn ugly drag, too.
>>
>> > So panspermia is creationism in your book.
>>
>> That would be what I said. Twice.
>
> sounds like complete nonsense. panspermia isn't creationism.

Question, is creationism being confided to a goddit scene, or is it
including ET intelligence.

If the former, I must agree. If both, then I see the OPs point, &
concur.

walksalone who has a minor problem with the English lanuage, too many
patois. & techical doalects, <Brooklyn accent> fugid about it</Brooklyn
accent>

I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and
reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder
and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the
evidence will have to be.
-Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-1992)