FAQ on Directed Panspermia, Sections EAB

[pnyikos]

This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
on Directed Panspermia (DP).


E. Expanding and extending the Drake equation

E1. How does one estimate the probability that earth life is the
result of directed panspermia?

REPLY: This is something everyone has to decide on for themselves.
Most are simply satisfied with the general belief that the probability
is extremely low. But to get an informed opinion about the matter, it
is necessary to use reasoning and analysis.

The issue can be analyzed into factors similar to those in the Drake
equation. For each factor, one has to use what very little (and often
very indirect) evidence is available to us. This is also true of most
of the factors in the Drake equation.

.

E2. What is the Drake equation?

REPLY: It is an equation used for estimating the number of
technological civilizations in our galaxy. It is generally given as:

N = R* � f_p � n_e � f_l � f_i � f_c � L

Where,

N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose
electromagnetic emissions are detectable.

R* =The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of
intelligent life.

f_p = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.

n_e = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment
suitable for life.

f_l = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually
appears.

f_i = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent
life emerges.

f_c = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that
releases detectable signs of their existence into space.

L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable
signals into space.

See: http://www.seti.org/drakeequation

R* is the only one about which we have generally accepted estimates
with a reasonably small difference in upper and lower bounds. We do
have a very small sample for estimating next two factors, and this
sample can be expected to grow very fast.

The others are pure guresswork, even with a generally accepted idea of
what "life" is. The product f_l � f_i is much easier to define, and
Sagan took the sensible attitude in _Cosmos_ of not trying to estimate
the two factors separately.

Astronomers generally seem to be very optimistic with their guesswork,
biologists much less so. The original estimates by Drake and his
colleagues in 1961 were wildly optimistic. See "Historical estimates
of the parameters" in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
The following section of this wikipedia entry gives subsequent
thinking on these matters.
.

E3: Doesn't the probability of directed panspermia depend on what f_l
is?

REPLY: Yes, but the relation is a complicated one. For purposes of
comparison, the relevant definition of "life" is "something not much
less complicated than the simplest free-living autotrophic
prokaryotes". So at least the concept is nailed down.

On the minus side: if one defines f_l that way, its value is something
about which there is a tremendous amount of controversy, even if one
takes it to mean "life arising by homegrown abiogenesis." Most
definitions of "life" are very undemanding in comparison to the
complexity of even the simiplest prokaryotes.

Also there is a gigantic range of opinion on the size of f_i, even
when using that value of f_l and that assumption.

The hypothesis of directed panspemia itself makes no assumption about
these probabilities. However, the author of this FAQ, Peter Nyikos,
does believe that f_l � f_i is so small that only one civilization
arrives via home-planet abiogenesis in any one galaxy, on the
average.

.

E4. Are there other ways in which the relation is a complicated one?

REPLY: For one thing, the factor f_l itself needs to take into account
the possibility of directed panspermia (DP). That is because of the
way the Drake equation was and is primarily intended: to estimate the
number of civilizations in the galaxy we can be expected to contact in
the foreseeable future.

Yet, taking DP into account is something that is seldom done in
articles on the Drake equation. When it is taken into account, f_l
becomes peculiarly time-dependent, especially if the simplified
"homegrown abiogenesis" version leads to a very small number. If it
does, than f_l itself can be expected to increase markedly once the
first technological civilization in the galaxy ascertains this and
starts undertaking a directed panspermia project.

On the other hand, if abiogenesis is easy on a planet with earth-like
conditions, the increase can be expected to be small, for reasons
Crick and Orgel already spelled out: see the last quote from them in
the reply to A7, which also explains the reasoning in the first
paragraph.

So, in the sequel, I will use f_A to designate the fraction of
suitable planets on which life of the stated complexity appears via
abiogenesis, and f_l will be as defined originally, but taking DP into
account.

.

E5. What are the other factors alluded to in the reply to E1?

REPLY: There are two kinds. One kind extends the Drake equation.

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

d_2: the fraction of civilizations as described above, undertaking a
massive directed panspermia project.

P = expected number of successful panspermia attempts by a race which
is attempting massive panspermia.

The other kind has to do with factoring f_i into various parts to make
it easier to analyze. This was done one way in:

Subject: An expansion of the Drake equation
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7ce90fe201b06c7c

[pnyikos]

Section A (specifically, the reply to A7) is mentioned in the draft of
E4, so I am reposting the latest version here.

A. Origins of the Theory of Directed Panspermia
.

A1. What is directed panspermia?

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

"the theory that organisms were deliberately
transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings
on another planet."
-- Icarus 19 (1973) 341-346
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf

All quotes from them below are taken from this same source. Another
website with the same article in more easily readable form [though
containing some typos] can be found here:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/Disclosure/PDF%20Documents/Directed%20Panspermi\
a%20F.%20H.%20C.%20CRICK%20AND%20L.%20E.%20Orgel.pdf

.

A2. How does directed panspermia relate to the "spore theory" of
Arrhenius and the "comet theory" of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe?

REPLY: These theories, which predate the theory of directed
panspermia, also
come under the heading of "panspermia." However, they are like
directed panspermia only insofar as they hypothesize that life as we
know it on earth began elsewhere. That is, microorganisms reached
earth from elsewhere and evolved into all other forms of earth life.
But unlike Crick and Orgel, these scientists did not assume any
intelligent agents had anything to do with the "transmission."

.

A3. What kinds of organisms and what means of transmission did Crick
and Orgel hypothesize?

REPLY:
"Could life have started on Earth as a
result of infection by microorganisms
sent here deliberately by a technological
society on another planet, by means
of a special long range unmanned spaceship?"

A little later in the article, they get very specific, but only for
illustrative purposes; their general theory is as above.

"The spaceship would carry large samples
of a number of microorganisms,
each having different but simple
nutritional requirements, for example
bluegreen algae, which could grow
on CO2, and water in `sunlight.
A payload of 1000kg might be made up
of 10 samples each containing 10^16
microorganisms, or 100 samples each of
10^15 microorganisms.

.

A4. Didn't Crick and Orgel consider the sending of organisms other
than microorganisms?

REPLY: Yes, but only to comparatively nearby planetary systems. As
Crick
later put it several times in _Life Itself_, "prokaryotes travel
farther". He and Orgel put it this way:

"It may be possible in the future to
send either mice or men or elaborate
instruments to the planets of other
Solar Systems (as so often described
in science fiction) but a rocket
carrying microorganisms will always
have a much greater effective range
and so be advantageous if the sole aim
is to spread life."

They go on to give several reasons immediately afterwards.

.

A5. What kinds of "unmanned spaceships" did Crick and Orgel have in
mind?

REPLY: Very slow ones, considering the vast distances between
planetary
systems.

"It would not be necessary to accelerate
the spaceship to extremely high velocities,
since its time of arrival would not be important.
The radius of our galaxy is about 10^5 light years,
so we could infect most planets in the galaxy
within 10^8 yr by means of a spaceship travelling
at only onethousandths of the velocity of light.
Several thousand stars are within a hundred light
years of the Earth and could be reached within as
little as a million years by a spaceship travelling
at 60,000 mph, or within 10,000 yr if a speed
one-hundredth of that of light were possible."

Unbeknownst to Crick and Orgel, in the same year this appeared, a
think tank of the British Interplanetary Society went to work
designing a spaceship almost within reach of our technology, capable
of speeds of about one-tenth of the speed of light. More about this,
and another such project within our technological abilities right now,
will appear in a later section of this FAQ.

.

A6. How did Crick and Orgel imagine that microorganisms could stay
alive that long?

REPLY:
"The question of how long microorganisms,
and in particular bacterial spores,
could survive in a spaceship
has been considered in a preliminary way
by Sneath (1962). He concludes
`that life could probably be preserved
for periods of more than a million years
if suitably protected and maintained
at temperatures close to absolute zero.'
Sagan (1960) has given a comparable estimate
of the effects of radiation damage."

.

A7. What evidence did Crick and Orgel give for the theory of directed
panspermia?

REPLY: The the scientific evidence was indirect, and admittedly weak.
It took
two forms. One was the near-universality of the genetic code. [There
is one variation in ciliates and a few others in various mitochondria,
but the differences are very minor and point to a common ancestral
source.]

It is a little surprising that organisms
with somewhat different codes do not coexist.
The universality of the code follows
naturally from infective theory
of the origins of life. Life on earth
would represent a clone derived
from a single extraterrestrial organism.
Even if many codes were represented at
the primary site where life began, only a
single one might have operated in
the organisms used to infect the Earth.

Of course, they acknowledged that there were various theories for the
near-universality of the code, "but none is generally accepted to be
completely convincing." [ibid.] Here is their other piece of strictly
scientific evidence:

Molybdenum is an essential trace element
that plays an important role in many
enzymatic reactions, while chromium
and nickel are relatively unimportant
in biochemistry. The abundance of chromium,
nickel, and molybdenum on the Earth are 0.20,
3.16, and 0.02%, respectively. We cannot
conclude anything from this single example,
since molybdenum may be irreplaceable in
some essential reaction -- nitrogen fixation,
for example. However, if it could be shown
that the elements represented in terrestrial
living organisms correlate closely with those
that are abundant in some class of star ... we
might look more sympathetically at "infective�
theories.

They also had some reasoning that belongs more to the philosophy of
science than to science *per se*. They make reference to "the theorem
of detailed cosmic
reversibility" and apply it thus, near the beginning of the article:

If we are capable of infecting an
*as yet* lifeless extrasolar planet,
then, given that the time was available,
another technological society might
well have infected our planet when
it was still lifeless.

They go on later in the article to speculate on various motives the
panspermists might have had. The one that most dovetails with "the
theorem" is this:

It seems unlikely that we would deliberately
send terrestrial organisms to planets
that we believed might already be inhabited.
However, in view of the precarious situation
on Earth, we might well be tempted to infect
other planets if we became convinced that
we were alone in the galaxy (Universe).
...
The hypothetical senders on another planet
may have been able to prove that they were
likely to be alone, and to remain so, or they
may have reached this conclusion mistakenly.
In either case, if they resembled us
psychologically, their motivation for polluting
the galaxy would be strong, if they believed
that all or even the great majority of
inhabitable planets could be given life by
Directed Panspermia.

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

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

[pnyikos]

Replies I did today to Marc Tessera on another thread lead me to think
that it the discussion could benefit from Section B, which I am doing
in two installments here.

In this first installment, the last entry is addresses Marc's query
about whether DP (directed panspermia) is falsifiable. Another answer
will appear in the second and final installment.

B. Some Pointed Questions about Directed Panspermia
.

B1. Doesn't directed panspermia simply "kick the can down the road"
where the origin of life is concerned?

REPLY: This question is based on a misconception of what the directed
panspermia hypothesis is all about. It has nothing to say about the
ultimate origins of life in our universe; it is about the origin of
life ON EARTH.

.

B2. Aren't origin-of-life experiments showing that life very likely
began on earth?

REPLY: The experiments have yet to produce even one of the four basic
nucleotides of RNA under simulation of conditions on the early earth,
after over six decades since the original Urey-Miller experiment. In
fact one website that has been approvingly quoted by "evolutionists"
in talk.origins has gone so far to say that scientists aren't trying
to produce life from scratch in the laboratory, at all.

The experiments that have been done to date only help to shed light
(very feeble light at that, see B7 below) as to how abiogenesis could
take place *somewhere*.

.

B3. But doesn't Ockham's Razor strongly favor life abiotically
produced on earth rather than by seeding by space aliens?

REPLY: Ockham's Razor decrees only that the most parsimonious
explanation be
given after ALL evidence has been scrutinized, and what little
evidence there is [see the answer to A7], is on the side of directed
panspermia.

By the way, the wording "space aliens" is a bit misleading in that it
suggests that the panspermists engaged in far-ranging space travel,
whereas they might never have even gone as far as the last large
planet in their system. The distances between stars are so great,
that all probes to other systems might have been only carrying much
smaller and hardier organisms than the intelligent species to which
the panspermists belonged.

.

B4. Why have we not found any evidence of space probes? Doesn't that
count as evidence against directed panspermia?

REPLY: [The following answer is taken largely
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a984ba163776071f]

This question begs the question. What artifact could possibly have
survived meteor bombardments on the moon or other body, or plate
tectonics and weathering on earth, over close to 4 billion years? What
evidence at all? The best answer takes us far away from the concept of
a probe: a biological organism, able to propagate its characteristics
indefinitely.

For instance, the panspermists might have invented the highly unusual
device called the bacterial flagellum, which is useful enough to have
a good chance of staying in existence all those billions of years
through being handed down from one generation to the next.

I once suggested that it may partly have been designed as a sort of
analogue of "Kilroy was here": intelligent beings eventually evolving
from the microscopic life the panspermists sent might look at it and
begin to suspect that their existence is due to another species having
sent life to earth, and be suitably appreciative of the gift of life
to the unknown beings that sent it.

.

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

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

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

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

.

B6. What if life is very common in our galaxy? What would that do to
the hypothesis of directed panspermia?

REPLY: That would entirely depend on the origins of that life. If all
technological societies preceding ours were confronted with life in
the majority of suitable planets, I doubt that there would ever have
been a directed panspermia project.

[pnyikos]

I am repeating B6 because it is referred to in B7.

B6. What if life is very common in our galaxy? What would that do to
the hypothesis of directed panspermia?

REPLY: That would entirely depend on the origins of that life. If all
technological societies preceding ours were confronted with life in
the majority of suitable planets, I doubt that there would ever have
been a directed panspermia project.

.

B7. Didn't Crick and Orgel later repudiate directed panspermia on
somewhat similar grounds?

REPLY: One talk.origins regular has claimed this, but the claim seems
to rest
on a misleading juxtaposition of references [62] (the directed
panspermia paper) and [63] in the Wikipedia entry on Francis Crick,
where the entry addresses the hypothesis of directed panspermia.

[63] is a January 1993 joint paper by Crick and Orgel,

"Anticipating an RNA world. Some past
speculations on the origin of life: where are they today?". The FASEB
Journal 7 (1): 238-9. PMID 7678564

It can be read in scanned form at:

http://www.fasebj.org/content/7/1/238.long

This paper not only does not make any mention of directed panspermia,
it also makes no guesses as to the frequency or rarity of life in our
galaxy. Crick and Orgel merely acknowledge that RNA World hypothesis
had shown that an assumption they had made a number of years back was
obsolete.

At the end of this paper, they showed how they had NOT changed
their minds on one of the chief pieces of evidence they had given
for directed panspermia: the essential universality of the genetic
code:

Perhaps the most interesting
question concerns the nature of the interaction that led to
specific attachment of amino acids to primitive tRNAs. Was
the anticodon involved? If the answer is yes, then certain
codon assignments are predetermined. If the answer is no,
then the genetic code is a frozen accident. We still favor the
frozen accident theory, and we know of no convincing
evidence that argues against it.
http://www.fasebj.org/content/7/1/238.long

As the Wikipedia entry puts it:

"Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the
chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind
of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life."

This is a reasonable inference from what they actually wrote, but that
is all.
They did NOT claim that this made them think abiogenesis is
commonplace in our galaxy, nor easily attained on the early earth. In
fact, in the same year that [63] was published, Orgel published
another joint article in which pessimism about RNA world was voiced:

Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to
divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually
but not always molecular biologists, believe that
RNA must have been the first replicating molecule
and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulty
of nucleotide synthesis. ... The second group
of scientists is much more pessimistic. They believe
that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on
the primitive earth would have been a near miracle.
(The authors subscribe to this latter view). Time
will tell which is correct.
--G. F. Joyce and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects
for understanding the origin of the RNA
world," in: _The RNA World_, ed. R. F.
Gesteland and J. F. Atkins, Cold Spring
Harbor Press, 1993, p. 19.

.

B8: Isn't directed panspermia essentially untestable, thereby removing
it from the category of science?

REPLY: It is eminently testable *in principle*, and may also become
testable
in practice if human beings make serious attempts to find out whether
there is life on other worlds. The following is mostly taken from

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/90027d90c58f7b4c

If we send enough probes, whether manned or unmanned, to
investigate the occurrence of life in many likely planets
in our galaxy, a lot of possibilities will be tested and
of the following four, only one will emerge the winner:

(1) We may find life in many stages of "protein takeover", all with
closely similar genetic codes.

That would be a big argument in favor of what I have called "the
Throomian sub-hypothesis." This has it that the panspermia project was
carried out by intelligent creatures that had ribozymes in place of
protein enzymes, and who carried out experiments in which they
replaced ribozymes incrementally with protein enzymes in organisms
over the course of thousands of years. They might have sent "the
latest models" to the planets they were seeding at that time.

On the other hand, if the takeover is in essentially the same stage as
that of earth, and the genetic code is very similar, that would
strongly support the overall hypothesis of directed panspermia while
all but falsifying the Throomian sub-hypothesis.

A third possible outcome is that we encounter lots of life with
genetic codes all very different from ours. That would all but
falsify all three main sub-hypotheses of directed panspermia,.

And finally, if we find no life after searching a million likely
planets, that would falsify the hypothesis that WE are the result of
evolution from unicellular organisms sent here by directed
panspermists, but would still leave my general hypothesis about the
frequency of directed panspermia largely unscathed.

.

B9: Is directed panspermia incompatible with Christian faith?

REPLY: No, why should it be, when the Bible makes no mention of
microorganisms? Even if one takes an absolutely literalist view of
Genesis, the arrival of unicellular life on earth could be fit into
either the second day or the beginning of the third day of creation.

The plants that are mentioned on the third day are eukaryotes, which
function better if there is plenty of oxygen in the air. And, of
course, animals could not live without large amounts of oxygen. There
were only trace amounts of oxygen on earth when it was first formed,
and the oxygen that subsequently became an important component of the
atmosphere is due to photosynthesis, especially by cyanobacteria,
during the billions of years before the plant kingdom arose.

The theory of directed panspermia dovetails scientifically with the
theory of naturalistic evolution, but it is also compatible with God
creating every earth species after the first infusion. As for the
microorganisms sent by the panspermists, they in turn could have been
the product of divine creation, if one insists on going the whole nine
yards with species immutability.

Directed panspermia is even quite in the spirit of Genesis 6 through
8, where Noah is depicted as saving the animals from the great flood
and then (8: 17-19) sends them out from the ark to swarm and multiply
all over the earth. Substitute the spacecraft delivering the microbes
for the ark, and the analogy is very good.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 2, 2:02�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Section A (specifically, the reply to A7) is mentioned in the draft of
> E4, so I am reposting the latest version here.
>
> � � � � � � � � A. Origins of the Theory of Directed Panspermia
> .
>
> A1. What is directed panspermia?
>
> REPLY: It is the theory that was introduced by Nobel Laureate
> biochemist
> Francis Crick and another distinguished biochemist, Leslie Orgel. As
> they put it, it is
>
> � "the theory that organisms were deliberately
> � �transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings
> � �on another planet."
> -- �Icarus 19 (1973) 341-346http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf

Where did Crick & Orgel obtain the idea that space aliens exist?

And since you're creating a FAQ shouldn't this question be included?

> All quotes from them below are taken from this same source. �Another
> website with the same article in more easily readable form [though
> containing some typos] can be found here:
>

> http://www.checktheevidence.com/Disclosure/PDF%20Documents/Directed%2...

The universal genetic code or preexisting evidence is what is being
talked about here. In other words no evidence offered to support the
existence of space aliens or their spacecraft. Two out of three or
more MAIN claims of Directed Panspermia are assumed true, preexisting
scientific evidence is then offered as supporting these two claims.

Let me illustrate:

"Our biological First Cause model says beings who live beneath the
crust of the Earth initiated the first life form that started the
selection process. We contend that the universal genetic code supports
our model."

General Audience:

Watch and see if Peter Nyikos answers each point satisfactorily? And
you might ask yourself as to why he and his sources are advocating
space aliens to explain how life first came to be on Earth? Its been
over 150 years since Darwin published his theory. Evolutionists still
can't explain how inanimate matter produced a living form. The space
alien theory becomes excellent evidence showing the impossibility of
abiogenesis. Only life can produce life. The refusal of Evolutionists
to acknowledge this fact clearly dictates that they are driven by
atheistic ideology that cannot be penetrated by any brute fact.

Ray

[Burkhard]

On 3 Apr, 02:19, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

> Where did Crick & Orgel obtain the idea that space aliens exist?
>
> And since you're creating a FAQ shouldn't this question be included?
>

Well, you have asked the question frequently, not sure if this alone
makes it into a FAQ. :o)

If with FAQ, we mean not so much if a question is indeed asked often,
but if it is a good question, then the answer would be no. Where
scientists get their idea from is what Popper called the "context of
discovery", and generally irrelevant for the evaluation of a theory.
Kekule famously dreamt about monkeys dancing in a cricle, which gave
him the idea that Benzenes are ring shaped molecules. That he got the
idea in a dream is irrelevant for the truth of the theory, and this is
generally the case in science. How a scientists gets an idea, or why
he was interested in that specific theory, doesn't matter, theories
stand and fall on thier own.


<snip>

>
> > A7. What evidence did Crick and Orgel give for the theory of directed
> > panspermia?
>
> > REPLY: The the scientific evidence was indirect, and admittedly weak.
> > It took
> > two forms.  One was the near-universality of the genetic code.
>
> The universal genetic code or preexisting evidence is what is being
> talked about here. In other words no evidence offered to support the
> existence of space aliens or their spacecraft. Two out of three or
> more MAIN claims of Directed Panspermia are assumed true, preexisting
> scientific evidence is then offered as supporting these two claims.

No, that's not quite correct. What we have here is the most common
form of scientific inference, an inference to the best explanation.
We make a couple of observations. We then ask: what could have
possibly brought these observations about? It is OK at this stage to
postulate entities for which there is no direct observational evidence
- provided the explanation is then in the next step tested, that is,
you ask what else ought to be true if the explanation is correct.

> Let me illustrate:
>
> "Our biological First Cause model says beings who live beneath the
> crust of the Earth initiated the first life form that started the
> selection process. We contend that the universal genetic code supports
> our model."

OK, that would indeed be an alternative explanation, and one that is
as just as much (or as little) supported by the universal genetic
code. I have to play a bit devil's advocate here, as I can't see why
the universal genetic code would be evidence for a designer, but let's
assume it for the sake of the argument.

So in this case, we'd have two competing hypothesis,
a) space aliens
b) ancient dwarfs

The next step would be to see if we can decide between these theories
- which inference is, if not the best, then the better of the two.

Both postulate entities for which we do not have direct evidence, so
as far as Occam is concerned, they are equally problematic.

The next question would be if either theory predicts that we should
have found direct evidence for these cultures. Nyikos I think argues
that since the spacecraft would have been very small, there is no
reason to believe that after billions of years, we still find traces
of it. OK, that means the test fails for this hypothesis. Should we
expect to find remains of an ancient culture from underneath the
earth, that first designed the ancestor of modern life? I have
honestly no idea. That's a disadvantage with both theories, they are
lacking in any detail, and we have little to compare them to to, so
it is difficult to decide what traces we shoudl expect to find. But
given that even some human cultures have disappeared without leaving
much in terms of traces (and some, possible without leaving any - we
would not know), and this within just a few millennia, I would grant
it to your theory that it too does not predict to find traces of that
culture, from several bilennia ago. So let's scorer this as a draw, or
near draw.

But then your theory gets into trouble. The (one?) reason why Nyikos
favours extraterrestrial origin of life is that there are planets out
there that are older than earth (or maybe have other characteristics
better suited for early life) So at least intuitively, he gains
something when pushing the origin of life on earth one step back. If
you want an informal rendition - if you know nothing about Jim and
John but that Jim has only started playing the lottery last week, but
John has been playing for decades, and you also know that one of them
has won it once, then your better bet is John. (this also shows how
weak the argument is - if you are foudn with lots of money in your
suitcase, and you claim that you won it in the lottery, saying that
others have been playing much longer than you is not evidence you
stole if after all)
Back to your scenarios, you now have the problem to explain how the
dwarfs managed to evolve in the much shorter period of time between
the earth's formation and the first traces of life on earth (which ex
hypothesis they created) So in a much shorter time, a first life would
have formed on earth, evolved to the level of technical sophistication
of your drwarf culture, that is capable of bioengineering life. And
that is were your alternative theory loses points - you don;t have
enough time to get the dwarfs into place, time Nyikos model has.

So while both theories are perfectly silly, we can nonetheless say
that one is the better explanation of the evidence than the other.

> General Audience:
>
> Watch and see if Peter Nyikos answers each point satisfactorily? And
> you might ask yourself as to why he and his sources are advocating
> space aliens to explain how life first came to be on Earth? Its been
> over 150 years since Darwin published his theory. Evolutionists still
> can't explain how inanimate matter produced a living form.

Well, that research really only started much later, after DNA was
decoded. And while we don;t know everything yet, the progress in the
relevant research is impressive, and no "in principle" obstacles have
s far been identified

> The space
> alien theory becomes excellent evidence showing the impossibility of
> abiogenesis. Only life can produce life. The refusal of Evolutionists
> to acknowledge this fact clearly dictates that they are driven by
> atheistic ideology that cannot be penetrated by any brute fact.
>
>

<snip>

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 04/03/2013 04:30 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> On 3 Apr, 02:19, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Where did Crick & Orgel obtain the idea that space aliens exist?
>>
>> And since you're creating a FAQ shouldn't this question be included?
>>
>
> Well, you have asked the question frequently, not sure if this alone
> makes it into a FAQ. :o)
>
> If with FAQ, we mean not so much if a question is indeed asked often,
> but if it is a good question, then the answer would be no. Where
> scientists get their idea from is what Popper called the "context of
> discovery", and generally irrelevant for the evaluation of a theory.
> Kekule famously dreamt about monkeys dancing in a cricle, which gave
> him the idea that Benzenes are ring shaped molecules.

I thought it was the ouroborous story for Kekule's insight, so didn't
know of the dancing monkey alternative til now. Maybe I'm relying too
much on the famous Burckhardt* worshipper Jung who relays the ouroborous
account in _Man and His Symbols_

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_August_Kekul%C3%A9_von_Stradonitz#Benzene

[quote wikipedia]The new understanding of benzene, and hence of all
aromatic compounds, proved to be so important for both pure and applied
chemistry after 1865 that in 1890 the German Chemical Society organized
an elaborate appreciation in Kekulé's honor, celebrating the
twenty-fifth anniversary of his first benzene paper. Here Kekulé spoke
of the creation of the theory. He said that he had discovered the ring
shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a
snake seizing its own tail (this is a common symbol in many ancient
cultures known as the Ouroboros). This vision, he said, came to him
after years of studying the nature of carbon-carbon bonds. It is curious
that a similar humorous depiction of benzene had appeared in 1886 in the
Berichte der Durstigen Chemischen Gesellschaft (Journal of the Thirsty
Chemical Society), a parody of the Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen
Gesellschaft, only the parody had monkeys seizing each other in a
circle, rather than snakes as in Kekulé's anecdote.[7] Some historians
have suggested that the parody was a lampoon of the snake anecdote,
possibly already well-known through oral transmission even if it had not
yet appeared in print.[8] Others have speculated that Kekulé's story in
1890 was a re-parody of the monkey spoof, and was a mere invention
rather than a recollection of an event in his life. Kekulé's 1890
speech[9] in which these anecdotes appeared has been translated into
English.[10] If one takes the anecdote as the memory of a real event,
circumstances mentioned in the story suggest that it must have happened
early in 1862.[11] The other anecdote he told in 1890, of a vision of
dancing atoms and molecules that led to his theory of structure,
happened (he said) while he was riding on the upper deck of a
horse-drawn omnibus in London. If true, this probably occurred in the
late summer of 1855.[12][/quote]

> That he got the
> idea in a dream is irrelevant for the truth of the theory, and this is
> generally the case in science.

Hoop snake or dancing monkey, I guess a dream is the case. And Kekule is
revered nonetheless in the history of organic chemistry.

> How a scientists gets an idea, or why
> he was interested in that specific theory, doesn't matter, theories
> stand and fall on thier own.

Alas the requisite warning off the genetic fallacy. Whatever the source
of an idea, it's whether it applies to the world that matters. Ray's
probably more likely to believe in deceptive talking snakes retrofitted
as fallen Satan than hoop snakes.

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

*- almost nobody knows of Burckhardt (more consonants than Swiss cheese
has holes)

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
>on Directed Panspermia (DP).

There are so many holes in this I'll take them one at a
time.

> E. Expanding and extending the Drake equation
>
>E1. How does one estimate the probability that earth life is the
>result of directed panspermia?
>
>REPLY: This is something everyone has to decide on for themselves.
>Most are simply satisfied with the general belief that the probability
>is extremely low. But to get an informed opinion about the matter, it
>is necessary to use reasoning and analysis.

....and data. And no data exists, something you admit below
but seem to fail to take into account.

>The issue can be analyzed into factors similar to those in the Drake
>equation. For each factor, one has to use what very little (and often
>very indirect) evidence is available to us. This is also true of most
>of the factors in the Drake equation.
>
>.
>
>E2. What is the Drake equation?
>
>REPLY: It is an equation used for estimating the number of
>technological civilizations in our galaxy. It is generally given as:
>

>N = R* � f_p � n_e � f_l � f_i � f_c � L

>
>Where,
>
> N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose
>electromagnetic emissions are detectable.
>
> R* =The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of
>intelligent life.

Known, at least to some extent.

> f_p = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.

Ditto.

> n_e = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment
>suitable for life.

Nearly a complete unknown.

> f_l = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually
>appears.

Based on a complete unknown.

> f_i = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent
>life emerges.

Based on an unsupported conjecture, and derived from a
(nearly; sample size of 1) complete unknown.

> f_c = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that
>releases detectable signs of their existence into space.

Ditto.

> L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable
>signals into space.

Ditto.

>See: http://www.seti.org/drakeequation
>
>R* is the only one about which we have generally accepted estimates
>with a reasonably small difference in upper and lower bounds. We do
>have a very small sample for estimating next two factors, and this
>sample can be expected to grow very fast.
>
>The others are pure guresswork

....which is the item most overlooked, especially by those
who claim probability numbers, and who really should know
better...

>, even with a generally accepted idea of

>what "life" is. The product f_l � f_i is much easier to define, and

>Sagan took the sensible attitude in _Cosmos_ of not trying to estimate
>the two factors separately.
>
>Astronomers generally seem to be very optimistic with their guesswork,
>biologists much less so. The original estimates by Drake and his
>colleagues in 1961 were wildly optimistic. See "Historical estimates
>of the parameters" in
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
>The following section of this wikipedia entry gives subsequent
>thinking on these matters.
>.
>
>E3: Doesn't the probability of directed panspermia depend on what f_l
>is?
>
>REPLY: Yes, but the relation is a complicated one. For purposes of
>comparison, the relevant definition of "life" is "something not much
>less complicated than the simplest free-living autotrophic
>prokaryotes". So at least the concept is nailed down.

Not really. Even granted the validity of the (non-S)WAGs on
which it's based, there is zero evidence that any
civilization would embark on such a program even if they
could.

>On the minus side: if one defines f_l that way, its value is something
>about which there is a tremendous amount of controversy, even if one
>takes it to mean "life arising by homegrown abiogenesis." Most
>definitions of "life" are very undemanding in comparison to the
>complexity of even the simiplest prokaryotes.
>
> Also there is a gigantic range of opinion on the size of f_i, even
>when using that value of f_l and that assumption.

There is a "gigantic range" of possibilities regarding every
single term in the Drake Equation past f_p, and the
"gigantic range" of opinions expand this
range...well...gigantically.

>The hypothesis of directed panspemia itself makes no assumption about
>these probabilities. However, the author of this FAQ, Peter Nyikos,

>does believe that f_l � f_i is so small that only one civilization

>arrives via home-planet abiogenesis in any one galaxy, on the
>average.

Peter, in the past you've stated that you believe the range
of probability of DP is from 1 in 2 to 1 in 30. I've asked
you to provide the calculations on which this probability is
based. If these conjectures are the basis for that claim,
please say so, so I'll know how to treat it.

>E4. Are there other ways in which the relation is a complicated one?
>
>REPLY: For one thing, the factor f_l itself needs to take into account
>the possibility of directed panspermia (DP). That is because of the
>way the Drake equation was and is primarily intended: to estimate the
>number of civilizations in the galaxy we can be expected to contact in
>the foreseeable future.
>
>Yet, taking DP into account is something that is seldom done in
>articles on the Drake equation. When it is taken into account, f_l
>becomes peculiarly time-dependent, especially if the simplified
>"homegrown abiogenesis" version leads to a very small number. If it
>does, than f_l itself can be expected to increase markedly once the
>first technological civilization in the galaxy ascertains this and
>starts undertaking a directed panspermia project.

Let's be clear on this: DP is an *assumption*; there is
*zero* evidence either for or against it.

>On the other hand, if abiogenesis is easy on a planet with earth-like
>conditions, the increase can be expected to be small, for reasons
>Crick and Orgel already spelled out: see the last quote from them in
>the reply to A7, which also explains the reasoning in the first
>paragraph.
>
>So, in the sequel, I will use f_A to designate the fraction of
>suitable planets on which life of the stated complexity appears via
>abiogenesis, and f_l will be as defined originally, but taking DP into
>account.
>
>.
>
>E5. What are the other factors alluded to in the reply to E1?
>
>REPLY: There are two kinds. One kind extends the Drake equation.
>
>d_1: the fraction of civilizations attaining to the level described in
>f_c going on to send probes to enough other planetary systems to
>ascertain whether life is commonplace in our galaxy, or that theirs is
>a unique planet in that respect.
>
>d_2: the fraction of civilizations as described above, undertaking a
>massive directed panspermia project.
>
>P = expected number of successful panspermia attempts by a race which
>is attempting massive panspermia.

Every single one of these is an assumption based on
conjecture, as is every term in the Drake Equation beyond
f_p. If you have any actual evidence regarding their
likelihood please post it. Note that "I believe it" is not
evidence, and that nothing you've posted above supports the
DP conjecture other than *as* conjecture; you start with
"What if?" and end with the assumption that DP is likely at
"between 1 in 2 and 1 in 30" (paraphrased). My question is,
where did you get those numbers? And are you familiar with
the acronym GIGO?

>The other kind has to do with factoring f_i into various parts to make
>it easier to analyze. This was done one way in:
>
>Subject: An expansion of the Drake equation
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7ce90fe201b06c7c

--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

[jillery]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:00:07 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

In discussing the relative probabilities between two cases, homegrown
technical civilizations and DP-derived technical civilizations, all of
the parameters of the original Drake Equation apply to both. By
identifying the differences contingent on the cases' assumptions wrt
time and place, and by focusing on the additional contingencies
necessary for DP, one should be able to eliminate from consideration
most of the Drake Equation, and so eliminate much opportunity for
obfuscating noise.

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 4, 11:00�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

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

>
> >This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
> >on Directed Panspermia (DP).
>
> There are so many holes in this I'll take them one at a
> time.
>

> > � � �E. Expanding and extending the Drake equation

>
> >E1. How does one estimate the probability that earth life is the
> >result of directed panspermia?
>
> >REPLY: This is something everyone has to decide on for themselves.
> >Most are simply satisfied with the general belief that the probability

> >is extremely low. �But to get an informed opinion about the matter, it

> >is necessary to use reasoning and analysis.
>
> ....and data. And no data exists, something you admit below
> but seem to fail to take into account.
>
>
>
>
>
> >The issue can be analyzed into factors similar to those in the Drake
> >equation. For each factor, one has to use what very little (and often

> >very indirect) evidence is available to us. �This is also true of most

> >of the factors in the Drake equation.
>
> >.
>
> >E2. What is the Drake equation?
>
> >REPLY: It is an equation used for estimating the number of
> >technological civilizations in our galaxy. It is generally given as:
>

> >N = R* � f_p �� �n_e �� �f_l �� �f_i �� �f_c � L
>
> >Where,
>
> > � �N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose
> >electromagnetic emissions are detectable.
>
> > � �R* =The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of

> >intelligent life.
>
> Known, at least to some extent.
>

> > � �f_p = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.
>
> Ditto.
>
> > � �n_e = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment

> >suitable for life.
>
> Nearly a complete unknown.
>

> > � �f_l = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually

> >appears.
>
> Based on a complete unknown.
>

> > � �f_i = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent

> >life emerges.
>
> Based on an unsupported conjecture, and derived from a
> (nearly; sample size of 1) complete unknown.
>

> > � �f_c = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that

> >releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
>
> Ditto.
>

> > � �L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable

> >signals into space.
>
> Ditto.
>
> >See:http://www.seti.org/drakeequation
>
> >R* is the only one about which we have generally accepted estimates

> >with a reasonably small difference in upper and lower bounds. �We do

> >have a very small sample for estimating next two factors, and this
> >sample can be expected to grow very fast.
>
> >The others are pure guresswork
>
> ....which is the item most overlooked, especially by those
> who claim probability numbers, and who really should know
> better...
>
>
>
>
>
> >, even with a generally accepted idea of

> >what "life" is. �The product f_l � f_i is much easier to define, and

> >Sagan took the sensible attitude in _Cosmos_ of not trying to estimate
> >the two factors separately.
>
> >Astronomers generally seem to be very optimistic with their guesswork,

> >biologists much less so. �The original estimates by Drake and his
> >colleagues in 1961 were wildly optimistic. �See "Historical estimates

> >of the parameters" in
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
> >The following section of this wikipedia entry gives subsequent
> >thinking on these matters.
> >.
>
> >E3: Doesn't the probability of directed panspermia depend on what f_l
> >is?
>
> >REPLY: Yes, but the relation is a complicated one. For purposes of
> >comparison, the relevant definition of "life" is "something not much
> >less complicated than the simplest free-living autotrophic

> >prokaryotes". �So at least the concept is nailed down.

>
> Not really. Even granted the validity of the (non-S)WAGs on
> which it's based, there is zero evidence that any
> civilization would embark on such a program even if they
> could.
>
> >On the minus side: if one defines f_l that way, its value is something
> >about which there is a tremendous amount of controversy, even if one
> >takes it to mean "life arising by homegrown abiogenesis." Most
> >definitions of "life" are very undemanding in comparison to the
> >complexity of even the simiplest prokaryotes.
>
> > Also there is a gigantic range of opinion on the size of f_i, even
> >when using that value of f_l and that assumption.
>
> There is a "gigantic range" of possibilities regarding every
> single term in the Drake Equation past f_p, and the
> "gigantic range" of opinions expand this
> range...well...gigantically.
>
> >The hypothesis of directed panspemia itself makes no assumption about

> >these probabilities. �However, the author of this FAQ, Peter Nyikos,
> >does believe that f_l � f_i is so small that only one civilization

> >arrives via home-planet abiogenesis in any one galaxy, on the
> >average.
>
> Peter, in the past you've stated that you believe the range
> of probability of DP is from 1 in 2 to 1 in 30. I've asked
> you to provide the calculations on which this probability is
> based. If these conjectures are the basis for that claim,
> please say so, so I'll know how to treat it.
>
> >E4. Are there other ways in which the relation is a complicated one?
>
> >REPLY: For one thing, the factor f_l itself needs to take into account

> >the possibility of directed panspermia (DP). �That is because of the

> >way the Drake equation was and is primarily intended: to estimate the
> >number of civilizations in the galaxy we can be expected to contact in
> >the foreseeable future.
>
> >Yet, taking DP into account is something that is seldom done in

> >articles on the Drake equation. �When it is taken into account, f_l

> >becomes peculiarly time-dependent, especially if the simplified

> >"homegrown abiogenesis" version leads to a very small number. �If it

> where did you get those numbers? �And are you familiar with

> the acronym GIGO?
>
> >The other kind has to do with factoring f_i into various parts to make

> >it easier to analyze. �This was done one way in:

>
> >Subject: An expansion of the Drake equation
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7ce90fe201b06c7c
>
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>
> - McNameless

I find your criticism of Peter's DP-FAQ very good. I too have
criticism posted upthread. Yet Peter has not responded. What he's been
doing is posting trivial messages in other threads, attempting to give
the impression that the criticism posted here does not, in the least,
bother him. I suspect he might treat your criticism the same way.

In reality, he is buying much needed time to produce answers. The
longer it takes equates to the hardest criticism to answer.

Ray

[jonathan]

"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:a9e0c72d-9e82-4736...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

>

> "The spaceship would carry large samples
> of a number of microorganisms,
> each having different but simple
> nutritional requirements, for example
> bluegreen algae, which could grow
> on CO2, and water in `sunlight.
> A payload of 1000kg might be made up
> of 10 samples each containing 10^16
> microorganisms, or 100 samples each of
> 10^15 microorganisms.
>
> .

So this is how the 'scientific' world views their God?
An all wise, powerful and benevolent Alien on a mission
of purity and good. To seed the galaxy!

My Goodness, if truth isn't stranger than fiction after all!

Any civilization with the kind of god-like technology
to seed the galaxy would have to be a stable society
able to live in a sustainable way within it's environment.
This implies a high level of understanding and appreciation
for how nature truly works.

Such true wisdom would mean they would have no ...need
to travel to other stars to propagate the species, since they
can easily live within their means.

Also, an understanding of nature means they would have
all their Grand Answers already, they wouldn't have to travel
to answer the ultimate question of whether we're alone.

And along with that level of intellgence and understanding
would have would come the realization that ...This is Heaven!
that all life is already swimming in as much beauty as
the universe can muster for them. So no....desire
to travel elsewhere, since anywhere else would be
by definition hellish in comparison.

>
> "It would not be necessary to accelerate
> the spaceship to extremely high velocities,
> since its time of arrival would not be important.
> The radius of our galaxy is about 10^5 light years,
> so we could infect most planets in the galaxy
> within 10^8 yr by means of a spaceship travelling
> at only onethousandths of the velocity of light.
> Several thousand stars are within a hundred light
> years of the Earth and could be reached within as
> little as a million years by a spaceship travelling
> at 60,000 mph, or within 10,000 yr if a speed
> one-hundredth of that of light were possible."

What would we think of NASA right now if it were to say
they're going to start shipping bacteria to every place in the
solar system they can, as far and wide as possible
without regard to anything at all? They'd be a laughing stock.
That doesn't seem consistent with a civilization that has
existed long enough to learn how to travel among the stars.

The secret to life isn't all that difficult to grasp
You know what the Second Law does right?
It breaks things down, randomizes and increases
disorder. Once that process is complete, a totally
random system, randomly disturbed, often generates
spontaneous cyclic order....hill climbing. Easily seen
with the random disruption of an interstellar cloud
suddenly producing a new solar system. Zero order
disturbed must create a non-zero level of order.

The Second Law creates just the right conditions for
what some used to call the Fourth Law, self organization.
Life needs little more than a persistent energy gradient
and lots of time.

It's no coincidence that the inverse-square law is as pervasive
with how matter goes from disorder to order, as it is
with the power law behavior defining so much of living
behavior. They both share two key properties...

1) The higher the peak, the larger the basin of attraction
2) Peaks tend to clump together.

This translates to a possibility space where any random path
through that space is more likely to fall into a region of ...higher
graviity/fitness than a lower one. Randomness translates to a bias
towards order from nothing more complicated than an
inverse-square law, or the properties of a fluid...er a liquid
or is it the other way around....you know the wet stuff~

>
> Unbeknownst to Crick and Orgel, in the same year this appeared, a
> think tank of the British Interplanetary Society went to work
> designing a spaceship almost within reach of our technology, capable
> of speeds of about one-tenth of the speed of light. More about this,
> and another such project within our technological abilities right now,
> will appear in a later section of this FAQ.

And Dear Emily figured out how life starts and evolves
all by herself a century and a half ago. Notice how she
seperates herself from Darwin by insisting that evolution
is largely an internal process, and ...twice...that outside
influences are minor effects in comparison, while evoking
the inverse-square law as the mechanism.

Which is exactly how the chaos and complexity sciences
sees self organizing systems today. As emerging from the
critical (ideal) interaction of the opposites of
static and chaotic behavior.

Emily is ....still ahead of her time.



Growth of Man -- like Growth of Nature --
Gravitates within --
Atmosphere, and Sun endorse it --
Bit it stir -- alone --

Each -- its difficult Ideal
Must achieve -- Itself --
Through the solitary prowess
Of a Silent Life --

Effort -- is the sole condition --
Patience of Itself --
Patience of opposing forces --
And intact Belief --

Looking on -- is the Department
Of its Audience --
But Transaction -- is assisted
By no Countenance --

>
> .
>
> A6. How did Crick and Orgel imagine that microorganisms could stay
> alive that long?
>
> REPLY:
> "The question of how long microorganisms,
> and in particular bacterial spores,
> could survive in a spaceship
> has been considered in a preliminary way
> by Sneath (1962). He concludes
> `that life could probably be preserved
> for periods of more than a million years
> if suitably protected and maintained
> at temperatures close to absolute zero.'
> Sagan (1960) has given a comparable estimate
> of the effects of radiation damage."
>
> .

Another logical result of such wisdom and technology
is the realization that since our current reality is largely
the result of the hopes and dreams of those that came
before, predicting the future is proportionally...futile.
Yet they're going to launch a thousand ships to who knows
where, thinking this gift is going to be a good solution
or benefit to the distant future?

> The hypothetical senders on another planet
> may have been able to prove that they were
> likely to be alone, and to remain so, or they
> may have reached this conclusion mistakenly.
> In either case, if they resembled us
> psychologically, their motivation for polluting
> the galaxy would be strong, if they believed
> that all or even the great majority of
> inhabitable planets could be given life by
> Directed Panspermia.

I just see a basic contradiction between that high level
of technology, and such a high level of ignorance about
Nature, to do such a thing as seed the galaxy.

What makes sense is the galaxy seeds itself, by the simple
universal process of evolution called self organization.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/4/13 3:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Apr 4, 11:00 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>>> This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
>>> on Directed Panspermia (DP).
>>
>> There are so many holes in this I'll take them one at a
>> time.
>>

>> [holes snipped (leaving what, if not holes?)]

>
> I find your criticism of Peter's DP-FAQ very good. I too have
> criticism posted upthread. Yet Peter has not responded. What he's been
> doing is posting trivial messages in other threads, attempting to give
> the impression that the criticism posted here does not, in the least,
> bother him. I suspect he might treat your criticism the same way.
>
> In reality, he is buying much needed time to produce answers. The
> longer it takes equates to the hardest criticism to answer.

"Buying time" is not a bad thing. When someone raises an important
point in response to one my posts, a point which I had not thought about
before, I believe it is entirely proper that I think about it before
posting a reply; in fact, I believe it would be wrong not to. And when
someone tells me, correctly, that I am wrong, taking time to reply
allows me to avoid the immediate emotional "How dare you say that!"
response and reply instead, "Er, yes, you are right."

--
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

[alias Ernest Major]

On 05/04/2013 00:40, jonathan wrote:
> "pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:a9e0c72d-9e82-4736...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>> "The spaceship would carry large samples
>> of a number of microorganisms,
>> each having different but simple
>> nutritional requirements, for example
>> bluegreen algae, which could grow
>> on CO2, and water in `sunlight.
>> A payload of 1000kg might be made up
>> of 10 samples each containing 10^16
>> microorganisms, or 100 samples each of
>> 10^15 microorganisms.
>>
>> .
>
>
> So this is how the 'scientific' world views their God?
> An all wise, powerful and benevolent Alien on a mission
> of purity and good. To seed the galaxy!

Peter Nyikos does not speak for the "scientific world".

--
alias Ernest Major

[jonathan]

"alias Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl> wrote in message
news:98w7t.357016$0K4.3...@fx25.fr7...

I thought that idea was put forward by a Nobel Laureate?



>
> --
> alias Ernest Major
>

[pnyikos]

Here is the second installment of Section E, with part of the first
installment repeated.

On Apr 2, 4:26�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
> on Directed Panspermia (DP).
>

> � � � E. Expanding and extending the Drake equation

>
> E1. How does one estimate the probability that earth life is the
> result of directed panspermia?
>
> REPLY: This is something everyone has to decide on for themselves.
> Most are simply satisfied with the general belief that the probability

> is extremely low. �But to get an informed opinion about the matter, it

> is necessary to use reasoning and analysis.
>
> The issue can be analyzed into factors similar to those in the Drake
> equation. For each factor, one has to use what very little (and often

> very indirect) evidence is available to us. �This is also true of most

> of the factors in the Drake equation.
>
> .
>
> E2. What is the Drake equation?
>
> REPLY: It is an equation used for estimating the number of
> technological civilizations in our galaxy. It is generally given as:
>

> N = R* � f_p �� �n_e �� �f_l �� �f_i �� �f_c � L
>
> Where,
>
> � � N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose
> electromagnetic emissions are detectable.
>
> � � R* =The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of
> intelligent life.
>
> � � f_p = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.
>
> � � n_e = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment
> suitable for life.
>
> � � f_l = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually
> appears.
>
> � � f_i = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent
> life emerges.
>
> � � f_c = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that

> releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
>

> � � L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable

> signals into space.
>
See:http://www.seti.org/drakeequation

E5. What are the other factors alluded to in the reply to E1?

REPLY: There are two kinds. One kind extends the Drake equation.

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

d_2: the fraction of civilizations as described above, undertaking a
massive directed panspermia project.

P = expected number of successful panspermia attempts by a race which
is attempting massive panspermia.

Here "successful" means an established strain of organisms that can
evolve for billions of years.

The other kind has to do with factoring f_i into various parts to make
it easier to analyze. This was done one way in:

Subject: An expansion of the Drake equation

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7ce90fe201b06c7c?dmode=source

Before getting into that here, here is a "dry run" under simplified
conditions to show how the estimate asked for in E1 could give us
insight into how the probabilities work. A simplifying assumption is
that we disregard "secondary panspermia" -- panspermia from planets
whose life originated by panspermia.

The following ratio and its treatment were introduced by Mark Isaak.

Let Ta be the number of planets at some point in time, in a galaxy
like ours, with a technological civilization like ours, that is due to
abiogenesis on the planet itself. Thus

Ta = R* � f_p � n_e � f_A � f_i � f_c

Let Td be the number planets in a galaxy like ours, with a
technological civilization like ours that is the product of directed
panspermia + evolution:

Td = Ta � d_1 � d_2 � f_i � f_c � P

The factor of Ta is due to the panspermists arising via abiogenesis on
their home planet. The others are there because of evolution following
the initial seeding producing the civilization, given the number P.

Let E = d_1 � d_2 � f_i � f_c � P

Now the probability of a technological civilization in a galaxy like
ours arising via directed panspermia is:

Td/(Td + Ta) = (Ta)(E)/[Ta + (Ta)(E)] =

= E/(E+1) because Ta cancels out.

So the probability depends only on what E is: the other factors cancel
out.

.

E6. Why is the time-dependence of some of the factors disregarded?

REPLY. Because this was a "dry run" that only looks at the ultimate
outcome, and "earth-like planets and civilizations" in general. The
issues specific to earth are partly taken into account by the
simplifying assumption of no "secondary panspermia." These issues have
to do with the universe being only about 13 billion years old, which
have a big impact on the real objective of judging whether our life is
the product of directed panspermia. They will be taken up later in
this FAQ.

Continued in follow-up to this post.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 4, 5:09 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In discussing the relative probabilities between two cases, homegrown
> technical civilizations and DP-derived technical civilizations, all of
> the parameters of the original Drake Equation apply to both.

Yes. This is made clear by my new additions to the REPLY to E5. In
particular, the details of the following are now worked out, with due
credit given to Mark Isaak:

[snip]

> one should be able to eliminate from consideration
> most of the Drake Equation, and so eliminate much opportunity for
> obfuscating noise.

The snipped part is only partly dealt with in the reply to E6. I have
some other things to post before I tackle the rest in earnest.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 4, 6:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 4, 11:00 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> > <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> > >This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
> > >on Directed Panspermia (DP).
>
> > There are so many holes in this I'll take them one at a
> > time.

I'll be dealing with the deailed criticism later.

For now, here is this little snippet.

> > Let's be clear on this: DP is an *assumption*; there is
> > *zero* evidence either for or against it.

DP is a *hypothesis*, not an assumption. I draw no conclusions from
it.

And homegrown abiogenesis (as opposed to abiogenesis, period) is in
the same Casanova boat: there is *zero* evidence either for or
against it.


YOU, Ray, have ignored the criticism of YOU by Burkhadt. and
Hemidactylus. Will you be indulging in blatant double standards by
NOT applying your criticism of me to yourself?

> I find your criticism of Peter's DP-FAQ very good.

Can you actually say why, or are you just sucking up to Casanova?

> I too have
> criticism posted upthread. Yet Peter has not responded.

YOU, Ray, have ignored the criticism of YOU by Burkhadt. and
Hemidactylus. Will you be indulging in blatant double standards by
NOT applying your criticism of me to yourself?

> What he's been
> doing is posting trivial messages in other threads,

Wrong. I did replies to Marc Tessera which are very germane to the
directed panspermia hypothesis.

You are behaving like a clone of Ron O below, pretending that only
things done on YOUR timetable count. These FAQ answers take time to
prepare, and you seem to have this very-unChristian attitude that
truth is dependent on how soon it is argued for.

> attempting to give
> the impression that the criticism posted here does not, in the least,
> bother him. I suspect he might treat your criticism the same way.
>
> In reality, he is buying much needed time to produce answers.

In reality, countering trolling by your kind, trolling such as you are
doing here, took so much time up that I didn't even LOOK at this
thread earlier this week. I did note less than two days ago that the
number of posts had gone from the 4 I did originally to 6; it was only
since then that the number of posts snowballed.

> The
> longer it takes equates to the hardest criticism to answer.

Again behaving like a clone of Ron O. You have chosen the absolute
worst role model in this whole newsgroup.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 4, 7:40�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

>
> news:a9e0c72d-9e82-4736...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > � "The spaceship would carry large samples
> > � �of a number of microorganisms,
> > � �each having different but simple
> > � �nutritional requirements, for example
> > � �bluegreen algae, which could grow
> > � �on CO2, and water in `sunlight.
> > � �A payload of 1000kg might be made up
> > � �of 10 samples each containing 10^16
> > � �microorganisms, or 100 samples each of
> > � �10^15 microorganisms.
>
> > .
>
> So this is how the 'scientific' world views their God?
> An all wise, powerful and benevolent Alien on a mission
> of purity and good. To seed the galaxy!

No. Not even that tiny part of the scientific world that thinks the
odds are in favor of directed panspermia. There is nothing "all
wise, all benevolent" about them, only the degree of these things
that have been achieved by millions of people alive today. As for
"powerful" give us another thousand years and we'll have a good chance
of having the needed "power."

> My Goodness, if truth isn't stranger than fiction after all!
>
> Any civilization with the kind of god-like technology
> to seed the galaxy would have to be a stable society
> able to live in a sustainable way within it's environment.
> This implies a high level of understanding and appreciation
> for how nature truly works.

We're getting there. Slowly, but give us another thousand years...

> Such true wisdom would mean they would have no ...need
> to travel to other stars

Or maybe taking themselves that far is too formidable an undertaking
compared to just sending probes with a few quadrillion microorganisms
apiece.

Did you read what you left in up there?

[snip airy-fairy speculation]

> > � "It would not be necessary to accelerate

> > � the spaceship to extremely high velocities,
> > � since its time of arrival would not be important.
> > � The radius of our galaxy is about 10^5 light years,
> > � so we could infect most planets in the galaxy
> > � within 10^8 yr by means of a spaceship travelling
> > � at only onethousandths of the velocity of light.
> > � Several thousand stars are within a hundred light
> > � years of the Earth and could be reached within as
> > � little as a million years by a spaceship travelling
> > � at 60,000 mph, or within 10,000 yr if a speed
> > � one-hundredth of that of light were possible."
>
> What would we think of NASA right now if it were to say
> they're going to start shipping bacteria to every place in the
> solar system they can,

We'd think they were crazy, for reasons you don't seem to have
comprehended:


[from the REPLY to A7]

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

> as far and wide as possible
> without regard to anything at all? They'd be a laughing stock.
> That doesn't seem consistent with a civilization that has
> existed long enough to learn how to travel among the stars.

Additional airy-fairy stuff snipped.

You are making it easy for people to believe malicious hearsay about
me: "Oh, so he's one of those airy-fairy kooks like jonathan, eh? How
sad that a professor of math should be such a complete kook."

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

Here is the third installment of Section E, repeating some things from
the first two:

> On Apr 2, 4:26�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


> > E2. What is the Drake equation?
>
> > REPLY: It is an equation used for estimating the number of
> > technological civilizations in our galaxy. It is generally given as:
>
> > N = R* � f_p �� �n_e �� �f_l �� �f_i �� �f_c � L
>
> > Where,
>
> > � � N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose
> > electromagnetic emissions are detectable.
>
> > � � R* =The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of
> > intelligent life.
>
> > � � f_p = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.
>
> > � � n_e = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment
> > suitable for life.
>
> > � � f_l = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually
> > appears.
>
> > � � f_i = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent
> > life emerges.
>
> > � � f_c = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that
> > releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
>
> > � � L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable
> > signals into space.
>
> See:http://www.seti.org/drakeequation

[snip]

> E5. What are the other factors alluded to in the reply to E1?
>
> REPLY: There are two kinds. One kind extends the Drake equation.

[snip]

> The other kind has to do with factoring f_i into various parts to make

> it easier to analyze. �This was done one way in:
>
> Subject: An expansion of the Drake equationhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7ce90fe201b06c7c?dmod...

E7. What is the point of factoring f_i further?

REPLY. There are many stages on the way from microorganisms like our
prokaryotes to intelligent life, but we have a great deal of knowledge
now about how evolution works, and the transition between some of the
stages is fairly well understood.

The factors of f_i are taken from the following posts; only the
notation is changed.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7ce90fe201b06c7c
and
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9cd354b0f09fba30

Recall that f_i is the fraction of suitable planets where life has
begun, that
go on to develop intelligent life.

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

Where e_j is the fraction of planets with organisms at Stage j going
on to evolve organisms at Stage j+1. The stages chosen in the above
posts are represented by the following organisms:

Stage 1: prokaryotes (bacteria, archae)

Stage 2: sexually reproducing eukaryotes

Stage 3: metazoans

Stage 4: lower chordates, mollusks, arthropods

Stage 5: primitive tetrapods

Stage 6: prosimians, *Saurornithoides*, raccoons

Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*

.

E8. What are the stages themselves?

REPLY. Here are brief descriptions. Extended comments on each stage
follow.

Stage 1: Efficient replicators and metabolizers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 4, 2:00�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

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

>
> >This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
> >on Directed Panspermia (DP).

Short on time, I tackle the first half (roughly) and leave the rest
for Monday. I've got a life to live outside Usenet. I wonder whether
your bootlicker, Ray Martinez, even has a job, or a family he has to
support and interact with a good part of every day.

> There are so many holes in this I'll take them one at a
> time.
>

> > � � �E. Expanding and extending the Drake equation

>
> >E1. How does one estimate the probability that earth life is the
> >result of directed panspermia?
>
> >REPLY: This is something everyone has to decide on for themselves.
> >Most are simply satisfied with the general belief that the probability

> >is extremely low. �But to get an informed opinion about the matter, it

> >is necessary to use reasoning and analysis.
>
> ....and data. And no data exists, something you admit below
> but seem to fail to take into account.

There is no data for homegrown abiogenesis, as opposed to abiogenesis
in general. *Homegrown* abiogenesis, perhaps with an assist from
comets carrying organic molecules, is the only scientific alternative

to the directed panspermia hypothesis.

I've said innumerable times that the playing field is level, but your
ideology forbids you to take any notice of this when it is said to
others, doesn't it?

> >The issue can be analyzed into factors similar to those in the Drake
> >equation. For each factor, one has to use what very little (and often

> >very indirect) evidence is available to us. �This is also true of most

> >of the factors in the Drake equation.
>
> >.
>
> >E2. What is the Drake equation?
>
> >REPLY: It is an equation used for estimating the number of
> >technological civilizations in our galaxy. It is generally given as:
>

> >N = R* � f_p �� �n_e �� �f_l �� �f_i �� �f_c � L
>
> >Where,
>
> > � �N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose
> >electromagnetic emissions are detectable.
>
> > � �R* =The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of

> >intelligent life.
>
> Known, at least to some extent.

Fine.

> > � �f_p = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.
>
> Ditto.

To an utterly trivial extent compared to the first one.

> > � �n_e = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment

> >suitable for life.
>
> Nearly a complete unknown.
>

> > � �f_l = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually

> >appears.
>
> Based on a complete unknown.

Indeed. See above about the level playing field where ourselves being
the result of homegrown abiogenesis is concerned.

Also, see my second installment, where the above factor "magically"
disappears. But jillery saw it coming, because she saw Mark Isaak's
analysis on which this "magic" is based.


> > � �f_i = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent

> >life emerges.
>
> Based on an unsupported conjecture,

Which conjecture would that be?

> and derived from a
> (nearly; sample size of 1) complete unknown.
>

See my third installment, where f_i is broken down into 6 factors,
some of which have enormous amounts of potentially relevant data in
the scientific literature.

> > � �f_c = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that

> >releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
>
> Ditto.

Based on our experience, we can make reasonable conjectures about this
one.

> > � �L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable
> >signals into space.
>
> Ditto.

Largely superfluous as far as directed panspermia goes. See the
second installment.

> >See:http://www.seti.org/drakeequation
>
> >R* is the only one about which we have generally accepted estimates

> >with a reasonably small difference in upper and lower bounds. �We do

> >have a very small sample for estimating next two factors, and this
> >sample can be expected to grow very fast.
>
> >The others are pure guresswork
>
> ....which is the item most overlooked, especially by those
> who claim probability numbers, and who really should know
> better...

Yeah, like Drake, his colleagues, Carl Sagan, and numerous other
astronomers and SETI enthusiasts.

I don't mind being in such distinguished company. As I wrote next:

> >, even with a generally accepted idea of

> >what "life" is. �The product f_l � f_i is much easier to define, and

> >Sagan took the sensible attitude in _Cosmos_ of not trying to estimate
> >the two factors separately.
>
> >Astronomers generally seem to be very optimistic with their guesswork,

> >biologists much less so. �The original estimates by Drake and his
> >colleagues in 1961 were wildly optimistic. �See "Historical estimates

> >of the parameters" in
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

> >The following section of this wikipedia entry gives subsequent
> >thinking on these matters.

Funny, you made no comment on this, yet you need something like it to
justify your last crack.

Remainder of Martinez-beloved text, and mine, snipped, to be replied
to on Monday.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:09:53 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

True. But my point was that, since every term in the Drake
Equation past f_p is nothing more than a guess with zero
actual supporting evidence, both the DE and DP (for which we
also have zero evidence) are "what-if" conjectures. *No*
numbers, even tentative ones, can be assigned to the terms
on which the rest of the DE terms, and thus the derivative
DP "calculations", are based.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 19:40:32 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:

>
>"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:a9e0c72d-9e82-4736...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>> "The spaceship would carry large samples
>> of a number of microorganisms,
>> each having different but simple
>> nutritional requirements, for example
>> bluegreen algae, which could grow
>> on CO2, and water in `sunlight.
>> A payload of 1000kg might be made up
>> of 10 samples each containing 10^16
>> microorganisms, or 100 samples each of
>> 10^15 microorganisms.
>>
>> .
>
>
>So this is how the 'scientific' world views their God?

Science has nothing to do with deities, pro or con; they are
simply irrelevant to scientific research. And Peter's
statements regarding DP, of which the above conjecture is a
sample, have nothing to do with science.

HTH.

<snip>

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 09:15:46 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Apr 4, 6:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 4, 11:00 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> > <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> > >This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
>> > >on Directed Panspermia (DP).
>>
>> > There are so many holes in this I'll take them one at a
>> > time.
>
>I'll be dealing with the deailed criticism later.
>
>For now, here is this little snippet.
>
>> > Let's be clear on this: DP is an *assumption*; there is
>> > *zero* evidence either for or against it.
>
>DP is a *hypothesis*, not an assumption. I draw no conclusions from
>it.

But you do; the conclusion is in the conjecture. There is,
as I stated, zero evidence either way.

And hypotheses are testable.

>And homegrown abiogenesis (as opposed to abiogenesis, period) is in
>the same Casanova boat: there is *zero* evidence either for or
>against it.

At one time there was no life on Earth. Now there is. It
occurred somehow, and postulating an external source does
not resolve the issue; in fact, it complicates it, since we
have zero evidence that such a source exists, or how likely
abiogenesis is on any particular planet, while we *do* have
evidence that the precursors of life occur spontaneously
even in interstellar space.

<snip whining>

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:08:50 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Apr 4, 2:00�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
>> >on Directed Panspermia (DP).
>
>Short on time, I tackle the first half (roughly) and leave the rest
>for Monday. I've got a life to live outside Usenet. I wonder whether
>your bootlicker, Ray Martinez, even has a job, or a family he has to
>support and interact with a good part of every day.
>
>> There are so many holes in this I'll take them one at a
>> time.
>>

>> > � � �E. Expanding and extending the Drake equation

>>
>> >E1. How does one estimate the probability that earth life is the
>> >result of directed panspermia?
>>
>> >REPLY: This is something everyone has to decide on for themselves.
>> >Most are simply satisfied with the general belief that the probability

>> >is extremely low. �But to get an informed opinion about the matter, it

>> >is necessary to use reasoning and analysis.
>>
>> ....and data. And no data exists, something you admit below
>> but seem to fail to take into account.
>
>There is no data for homegrown abiogenesis, as opposed to abiogenesis
>in general. *Homegrown* abiogenesis, perhaps with an assist from
>comets carrying organic molecules, is the only scientific alternative
>to the directed panspermia hypothesis.

Yes. And we have evidence for such, while there is zero
evidence that any civilization capable of, and desirous of,
DP ever existed or ever will exist.

>I've said innumerable times that the playing field is level, but your
>ideology forbids you to take any notice of this when it is said to
>others, doesn't it?

But with zero evidence supporting your conjecture, and
evidence that abiogenesis is at least possible via
naturally-occurring organic precursors (which are observed
to exist) the playing field is *not* level.

>> >The issue can be analyzed into factors similar to those in the Drake
>> >equation. For each factor, one has to use what very little (and often

>> >very indirect) evidence is available to us. �This is also true of most

>> >of the factors in the Drake equation.
>>
>> >.
>>
>> >E2. What is the Drake equation?
>>
>> >REPLY: It is an equation used for estimating the number of
>> >technological civilizations in our galaxy. It is generally given as:
>>

>> >N = R* � f_p �� �n_e �� �f_l �� �f_i �� �f_c � L
>>
>> >Where,
>>

>> > � �N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose
>> >electromagnetic emissions are detectable.
>>
>> > � �R* =The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of

>> >intelligent life.
>>
>> Known, at least to some extent.
>
>Fine.
>

>> > � �f_p = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.

>>
>> Ditto.
>
>To an utterly trivial extent compared to the first one.
>

>> > � �n_e = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment

>> >suitable for life.
>>
>> Nearly a complete unknown.
>>

>> > � �f_l = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually

>> >appears.
>>
>> Based on a complete unknown.
>
>Indeed. See above about the level playing field where ourselves being
>the result of homegrown abiogenesis is concerned.

And see my response.

>Also, see my second installment, where the above factor "magically"
>disappears. But jillery saw it coming, because she saw Mark Isaak's
>analysis on which this "magic" is based.
>
>

>> > � �f_i = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent

>> >life emerges.
>>
>> Based on an unsupported conjecture,
>
>Which conjecture would that be?
>
>> and derived from a
>> (nearly; sample size of 1) complete unknown.
>>
>See my third installment, where f_i is broken down into 6 factors,
>some of which have enormous amounts of potentially relevant data in
>the scientific literature.

You insist on continuing to calculate probabilities from
complete unknowns and conjectures regarding the possible
existence of alien civilizations and their actions, all
based on the terms in the Drake Equation, those following
f_p, for which there is *no* evidence. That's both bad
science and bad math.

>> > � �f_c = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that

>> >releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
>>
>> Ditto.
>
>Based on our experience, we can make reasonable conjectures about this
>one.

No, we cannot, since the preceding term on which it depends,
n_e, f_l and f_i, are completely unknown. Earth is not a
statistically valid sample.

>> > � �L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable

>> >signals into space.
>>
>> Ditto.
>
>Largely superfluous as far as directed panspermia goes. See the
>second installment.

Since it is also a complete unknown, I happen to agree that
it's superfluous.

>> >See:http://www.seti.org/drakeequation
>>
>> >R* is the only one about which we have generally accepted estimates

>> >with a reasonably small difference in upper and lower bounds. �We do

>> >have a very small sample for estimating next two factors, and this
>> >sample can be expected to grow very fast.
>>
>> >The others are pure guresswork
>>
>> ....which is the item most overlooked, especially by those
>> who claim probability numbers, and who really should know
>> better...
>
>Yeah, like Drake, his colleagues, Carl Sagan, and numerous other
>astronomers and SETI enthusiasts.

Exactly. And none of these, AFAIK, attempted to invoke any
sort of legitimacy in the DE; it was a thought exercise.
You, not they, were the object of my comment.

>I don't mind being in such distinguished company. As I wrote next:
>
>> >, even with a generally accepted idea of

>> >what "life" is. �The product f_l � f_i is much easier to define, and

>> >Sagan took the sensible attitude in _Cosmos_ of not trying to estimate
>> >the two factors separately.
>>
>> >Astronomers generally seem to be very optimistic with their guesswork,

>> >biologists much less so. �The original estimates by Drake and his
>> >colleagues in 1961 were wildly optimistic. �See "Historical estimates

>> >of the parameters" in
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
>
>> >The following section of this wikipedia entry gives subsequent
>> >thinking on these matters.
>
>Funny, you made no comment on this, yet you need something like it to
>justify your last crack.

Nope. My last "crack", as you put it, had to do with the
GIGO phenomenon, and with those like yourself who take a
conjecture never intended to be other than a "what-if" basis
for discussion, and give it the mantle of Holy Writ.

The fact you need to address is that, as I stated above (and
elsewhere), the terms of the DE following f_p have no data
by which any sort of probability can be assigned; they are,
quite simply, total unknowns. Until you address this *and
provide a valid response* your DP conjectures based on them
have no scientific or mathematical validity whatsoever.

And I'd already read the Wiki entry; based on the following
notes from the entry I wonder if you did?

From the descriptive f_l section:

"From a classical hypothesis testing standpoint, there are
zero degrees of freedom, permitting no valid estimates to be
made."

(Note that this means that any terms which depend on f_p are
thus moot.)

From the Criticism section:

"The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be
known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to
work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a
result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions
and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything
means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is
literally meaningless..."

It will be interesting to see how you refute these
statements without resorting to further argument from
authority ("Yeah, like Drake, his colleagues, Carl Sagan,
and numerous other astronomers and SETI enthusiasts")....

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:08:50 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

<snip>

>I wonder whether
>your bootlicker, Ray Martinez

Nice, Peter; you've entered personal attack mode even
earlier than usual. So it's your opinion that anyone who
agrees with a criticism of your assertions is a
"bootlicker"?

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Anyone familiar with my exchanges with Ray over the past few
years would realize your comment is ludicrous, but all you
can see is the agreement on this issue, and you respond
according to your (apparent) nature.

(Balance of post addressed elsethread.)

<snip>

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:00:07 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>>This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
>>on Directed Panspermia (DP).
>
>There are so many holes in this I'll take them one at a
>time.

<snip portion already addressed and answered; he *says*
he'll answer the rest, shown below, on Monday. Peter's
penchant for dissecting posts and addressing them over the
course of days or weeks is becoming more than annoying...>

[jillery]

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:34:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Yeppers, and you made your point very clearly. Still, these topics
tend to get obfuscated more than others, and focusing on the
differences might be a way to mitigate that.

[jillery]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 08:56:42 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Apr 4, 5:09 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In discussing the relative probabilities between two cases, homegrown
>>technical civilizations and DP-derived technical civilizations, all of

>>the parameters of the original Drake Equation apply to both. By
>>identifying the differences contingent on the cases' assumptions wrt
>>time and place, and by focusing on the additional contingencies

>>necessary for DP, one should be able to eliminate from consideration

>>most of the Drake Equation, and so eliminate much opportunity for
>>obfuscating noise.

<snip restored>

>Yes. This is made clear by my new additions to the REPLY to E5. In
>particular, the details of the following are now worked out, with due
>credit given to Mark Isaak:
>
>
>

[pnyikos]

On Apr 5, 2:24 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:08:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

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

>
> <snip>
>
> >I wonder whether
> >your bootlicker, Ray Martinez
>
> Nice, Peter; you've entered personal attack mode even
> earlier than usual. So it's your opinion that anyone who
> agrees with a criticism of your assertions is a
> "bootlicker"?

No, it's my assertion that anyone like Martinez, who acts as though he
hates atheists and evolutionists, then turns around and praises them
against people like myself and (worse yet) fellow creationists, is a
bootlicker.

He seems to hate his fellow Christians, like myself, and fellow
creationists, like Pagano and Kalkidas, far more than he hates any of
your kind.

Were this the first time he's done this, I would wait for more
evidence, but he has done it a number of times before. He has even
swallowed Coffey's lie that I have aided pro-Nazis, anti-semites,
racists, etc hook, line, and sinker.

He did apologize for that and promised not to do it again, but what
he's done here is to approve of arguments he lacks the knowledge to
defend, much less come up with, himself. Given his past behavior, I
call that as I see it: bootlcking.

> You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Actually, I am convinced that it is Ray who has no idea what he is
talking about when he praises you the way he did.

> Anyone familiar with my exchanges with Ray over the past few
> years would realize your comment is ludicrous,

Enemies can turn into allies very easily, and vice versa, on
politically charged newsgroups like this one. I've seen it happen
time and time again.

Besides, I have often suspected Ray of being a Loki. His persona is
so crashingly incompetent, hypocritical, insincere and dishonest that
the hypothesis that he is trying to make non-atheists look bad
deserves serious consideration.

> but all you
> can see is the agreement on this issue, and you respond
> according to your (apparent) nature.

You are projecting the nature of your fellow unMagnificent Seven
members, jillery and O'Shea, onto me. When they saw me say I thought
UC had the upper hand in a dispute about the correct usage of the word
"ape" jillery *graphically* accused me of having a homosexual
relationship with UC, and O'Shea loved it.

Do you agree that we are coelenterates?

Unless you do, or unless you deny that we are *descended* *from*
coelenterates, you are implicitly agreeing with me that UC had the
upper hand in that dispute.
Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 5, 2:32 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:00:07 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
> >On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

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

>
> >>This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
> >>on Directed Panspermia (DP).
>
> >There are so many holes in this I'll take them one at a
> >time.
>
> <snip portion already addressed and answered;

And I'll address that Monday also, even though I've addressed a lot of
the same barbs in the earlier threads, one of which was referenced in
my second and third updates.

> he *says*
> he'll answer the rest, shown below, on Monday. Peter's
> penchant for dissecting posts and addressing them over the
> course of days or weeks is becoming more than annoying...>

I take it you don't have a job, nor a family living with you taking up
the bulk of your time. I do.

What's more, I've administered a grand total of about 100 five-page
test papers, 50 quiz papers, and 36 homework papers in this past week,
and I'm going up to Charlotte, NC tomorrow (Saturday!) to a seminar
where I am slated to lecture for about an hour. And I've got income
taxes and a FAFSA wrt my youngest daughter to take care of.

What do you have to compete against that?

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

[pnyikos]

Has jillery un-killfiled me? Or has she switched to a different
posting service? anyway, here she is replying directly to me.

On Apr 5, 3:04 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 08:56:42 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 4, 5:09 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>In discussing the relative probabilities between two cases, homegrown
> >>technical civilizations and DP-derived technical civilizations, all of
> >>the parameters of the original Drake Equation apply to both.  By
> >>identifying the differences contingent on the cases' assumptions wrt
> >>time and place, and by focusing on the additional contingencies
> >>necessary for DP, one should be able to eliminate from consideration
> >>most of the Drake Equation, and so eliminate much opportunity for
> >>obfuscating noise.
>
> <snip restored>

What was restored were snips by jillery of her own words (reposted
below) along with snips I made the first time around.

I am reposting the jillery snips below.

<first repost of jillery snip:>

> In discussing the relative probabilities between two cases, homegrown
> technical civilizations and DP-derived technical civilizations, all of
> the parameters of the original Drake Equation apply to both.

<end of first repost of jillery's words>

> >Yes.  This is made clear by my new additions to the REPLY to E5.  In
> >particular, the details of the following are now worked out, with due
> >credit given to Mark Isaak:

<repost of snip marking by me, and more of jillery's text>

[snip]

> one should be able to eliminate from consideration
> most of the Drake Equation, and so eliminate much opportunity for
> obfuscating noise.

<end of second repost>

[jillery]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:43:21 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Has jillery un-killfiled me? Or has she switched to a different
>posting service?

If you knew anything about kill filters or usenet headers, you
wouldn't ask such a silly question.

>anyway, here she is replying directly to me.

Can't slip anything past you.


<snip remainder of useless post>

[pnyikos]

On Apr 5, 5:18 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:43:21 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Has jillery un-killfiled me?  Or has she switched to a different
> >posting service?
>
> If you knew anything about kill filters or usenet headers, you
> wouldn't ask such a silly question.

Wrong "if". Correct is, "if it took you less time to study and
compare my post headers than it does to type out these questions,..."

> >anyway, here she is replying directly to me.
>
> Can't slip anything past you.
>
> <snip remainder of useless post>

I'm glad you thought it was useless to repost your earlier comments in
context. This means it was useless for you to repost what you wrote
earlier-- or would mean it if you weren't the quintessential "do as I
say, not as I do" person.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 5, 3:23 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> You are projecting the nature of your fellow unMagnificent Seven
> members, jillery and O'Shea, onto me.  When they saw me say I thought
> UC had the upper hand in a dispute about the correct usage of the word
> "ape" jillery *graphically* accused me of having a homosexual
> relationship with UC, and O'Shea loved it.

I retract the "*graphically*", which was based on a faulty
recollection, and apologize for any misunderstanding it could cause.

Peter Nyikos

[Paul J Gans]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:34:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:

[big snip]

>>True. But my point was that, since every term in the Drake
>>Equation past f_p is nothing more than a guess with zero
>>actual supporting evidence, both the DE and DP (for which we
>>also have zero evidence) are "what-if" conjectures. *No*
>>numbers, even tentative ones, can be assigned to the terms
>>on which the rest of the DE terms, and thus the derivative
>>DP "calculations", are based.

>Yeppers, and you made your point very clearly. Still, these topics
>tend to get obfuscated more than others, and focusing on the
>differences might be a way to mitigate that.

If one is interested in computing a quantity that is the
product of other quantities (the Drake Equation is like
this), having even ONE factor whose value is unknown and
whose bounds are extremely large means that the result
is meaningless.

A sensible discussion of the Drake Equation (impossible
here) would involve looking at the assumptions that other
life would be somewhat similar to life that we know; the
assumption that civilizations pass through a "radio"
stage, and many other such things.

The radio stage on earth lasted about 100 years or less.
Easy to miss such signals from other star systems.

My view is that the Drake Equation is meaningless.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[jillery]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Apr 5, 5:18 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:43:21 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Has jillery un-killfiled me?  Or has she switched to a different
>> >posting service?
>>
>> If you knew anything about kill filters or usenet headers, you
>> wouldn't ask such a silly question.
>
>Wrong "if". Correct is, "if it took you less time to study and
>compare my post headers than it does to type out these questions,..."

So you admit you could have answered your own question, but didn't
even bother. No surprise there.

>> >anyway, here she is replying directly to me.
>>
>> Can't slip anything past you.
>>
>> <snip remainder of useless post>
>
>I'm glad you thought it was useless to repost your earlier comments in
>context.

My earlier comments were already in context before you mangled them. I
restored them in context. You mangled them again. Your mangling of
my comments remains useless

>This means it was useless for you to repost what you wrote
>earlier-- or would mean it if you weren't the quintessential "do as I
>say, not as I do" person.

Actually this means you're a babbling idiot.

[jillery]

The issue isn't whether the Drake Equation is meaningless, but how the
Drake Equation is used. Drake himself explicitly stated that it was
to identify the variables relevant to a discussion of extraterrestrial
intelligence. That is a meaningful thing to do and a meaningful thing
to discuss. That some people mis-use the Drake Equation to
rationalize their own preconceptions does not make it meaningless.

[Ray Martinez]

On Apr 5, 9:15�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 6:24�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 11:00�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> > > <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> > > >This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
> > > >on Directed Panspermia (DP).
>
> > > There are so many holes in this I'll take them one at a
> > > time.
>
> I'll be dealing with the deailed criticism later.
>
> For now, here is this little snippet.
>
> > > Let's be clear on this: DP is an *assumption*; there is
> > > *zero* evidence either for or against it.
>
> DP is a *hypothesis*, not an assumption. �I draw no conclusions from
> it.
>
> And homegrown abiogenesis (as opposed to abiogenesis, period) is in
> the same Casanova boat: there is �*zero* evidence either for or
> against it.
>

> YOU, Ray, have ignored the criticism of YOU by Burkhardt. and

> Hemidactylus. �Will you be indulging in blatant double standards by
> NOT applying your criticism of me to yourself?

Professor Nyikos hiding behind the skirts of two peanut gallery
spectators? Why should I waste my time answering Burk who has you
killfiled, and Hemi who quotes, in extenso, Wikipedia, that is, a site
where Lindsay Lohan could have written the article?

As I already observed you are buying time.

>
> > I find your criticism of Peter's DP-FAQ very good.
>
> Can you actually say why, or are you just sucking up to Casanova?

I was about to post very similar criticism, then I saw his post. What
you seem to forget is the fact that DPism resides in nutcase land.
Yes, it seems you actually think DPism has attained some sort of
respect as a theory. Even a deluded evo like Bob Casanova can wipe the
floor with your nonsense, Peter.

Don't forget you're on a public forum advocating the falsity of
Genesis First Cause. Do you really think we Theists are going to lay
down and issue a free pass? But you also seem to be taking things
personally. This is about DPism and your advocacy, nothing else.

>
> > I too have
> > criticism posted upthread. Yet Peter has not responded.
>
> YOU, Ray, have ignored the criticism of YOU by Burkhadt. and
> Hemidactylus. �Will you be indulging in blatant double standards by
> NOT applying your criticism of me to yourself?

Addressed above; yet in addition: You're delaying, dragging your feet.
Fine. I will wait. You are topic author, not Burk or Hemi. I want
answers, Peter. I've given your DPism a free ride for too long now. I
find DPism offensive.

>
> > What he's been
> > doing is posting trivial messages in other threads,
>
> Wrong. �I did replies to Marc Tessera which are very germane to the
> directed panspermia hypothesis.

I've kept track of your posting since this topic was posted. These are
trivial and could be interpreted several different ways. The fact that
you are demanding that I answer Burk and Hemi tells me that you want
to see rebuttal answers ahead of time. That's not going to happen.
It's time for you to man-up, Peter. Defend your DP hypothesis or
retract it.

>
> You are behaving like a clone of Ron O below, pretending that only
> things done on YOUR timetable count. �These FAQ answers take time to
> prepare, and you seem to have this very-unChristian attitude that
> truth is dependent on how soon it �is argued for.

Fine, FAQ answers take time to prepare, yes, I agree. Invoking Ron O
is petty, cease and desist.

>
> > attempting to give
> > the impression that the criticism posted here does not, in the least,
> > bother him. I suspect he might treat your criticism the same way.
>
> > In reality, he is buying much needed time to produce answers.
>
> In reality, countering trolling by your kind, trolling such as you are
> doing here, took so much time up that I didn't even LOOK at this
> thread earlier this week. �I did note less than two days ago that the
> number of posts had gone from the 4 I did originally to 6; it was only
> since then that the number of posts snowballed.
>
> > �The
> > longer it takes equates to the hardest criticism to answer.
>
> Again behaving like a clone of Ron O. �You have chosen the absolute
> worst role model in this whole newsgroup.
>
> Peter Nyikos

So, you've explained why you haven't responded yet. So be it.

But the more time you spend chatting with Paul Gans the more it
appears that you're on-the-run.

Ray (Paleyan IDist)

PS: In a post upthread you accuse me of being dishonest. Do dishonest
people issue genuine apologies (like I have)? And if I'm as you say
when will my name be placed among the unMagnificent seven?

RM

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:23:42 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Apr 5, 2:24�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:08:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >I wonder whether
>> >your bootlicker, Ray Martinez
>>
>> Nice, Peter; you've entered personal attack mode even
>> earlier than usual. So it's your opinion that anyone who
>> agrees with a criticism of your assertions is a
>> "bootlicker"?
>
>No, it's my assertion that anyone like Martinez, who acts as though he
>hates atheists and evolutionists, then turns around and praises them
>against people like myself and (worse yet) fellow creationists, is a
>bootlicker.

This comment is very revealing, since it avoids addressing
the subject in favor of a personality attack.

>He seems to hate his fellow Christians, like myself, and fellow
>creationists, like Pagano and Kalkidas, far more than he hates any of
>your kind.
>
>Were this the first time he's done this, I would wait for more
>evidence, but he has done it a number of times before. He has even
>swallowed Coffey's lie that I have aided pro-Nazis, anti-semites,
>racists, etc hook, line, and sinker.
>
>He did apologize for that and promised not to do it again, but what
>he's done here is to approve of arguments he lacks the knowledge to
>defend, much less come up with, himself. Given his past behavior, I
>call that as I see it: bootlcking.
>
>> You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
>
>Actually, I am convinced that it is Ray who has no idea what he is
>talking about when he praises you the way he did.

I'll be able to evaluate that when you provide a refutation
of my post. So far you haven't.

>> Anyone familiar with my exchanges with Ray over the past few
>> years would realize your comment is ludicrous,
>
>Enemies can turn into allies very easily, and vice versa, on
>politically charged newsgroups like this one. I've seen it happen
>time and time again.

And again you attempt to shift a question of the merits of
the subject to one of personalities.

>Besides, I have often suspected Ray of being a Loki. His persona is
>so crashingly incompetent, hypocritical, insincere and dishonest that
>the hypothesis that he is trying to make non-atheists look bad
>deserves serious consideration.
>
>> but all you
>> can see is the agreement on this issue, and you respond
>> according to your (apparent) nature.
>
>You are projecting the nature of your fellow unMagnificent Seven
>members, jillery and O'Shea, onto me. When they saw me say I thought
>UC had the upper hand in a dispute about the correct usage of the word
>"ape" jillery *graphically* accused me of having a homosexual
>relationship with UC, and O'Shea loved it.

Missed that, and UC was incorrect by current usage, as was
shown him in several posts (which he ignored). I have no
idea what your sexual proclivities may be, and frankly I
don't care.

>Do you agree that we are coelenterates?
>
>Unless you do, or unless you deny that we are *descended* *from*
>coelenterates, you are implicitly agreeing with me that UC had the
>upper hand in that dispute.

I ignored that "dispute"; sorry 'bout that. It's not all
about you, and I'm still waiting for you to refute what I
posted.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:04:15 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Perzackly.

> That is a meaningful thing to do and a meaningful thing
>to discuss. That some people mis-use the Drake Equation to
>rationalize their own preconceptions does not make it meaningless.

It's meaningful *as a conceptual framework for discussion*.
Unfortunately, that's not how it's too often invoked, not
even always due to preconceptions, and those invocations,
and their derivatives, such as DP "calculations", *are*
meaningless.

[Paul J Gans]

I see your point, but I'd respond that the terms used by
Drake are peculiar to his time. A little distance shows
that radio is likely not an important method of communication.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kjps5i$7ir$2...@reader1.panix.com>,

But advanced societies are likely to keep radio around for research if
nothing else. It seems the casual uses of radio will only carry
messages for short (by galactic standards) distances. We could send
messages much further if beamed but that involves picking likely
targets and there are so many possibilities.

Perhaps the real interstellar communication would be via laser? Still
same problems though.

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

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <kjps5i$7ir$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> I see your point, but I'd respond that the terms used by
>> Drake are peculiar to his time. A little distance shows
>> that radio is likely not an important method of communication.

>But advanced societies are likely to keep radio around for research if
>nothing else. It seems the casual uses of radio will only carry
>messages for short (by galactic standards) distances. We could send
>messages much further if beamed but that involves picking likely
>targets and there are so many possibilities.

Agreed. When the Drake Equation was constructed, it was
assumed that broadcast radio communication would continue
for a long time as a mark of a technological civilization.

Sadly, today the amount of radio communication with any power
is dwindling rapidly. Most long distance communication is
done either by cable or by directed beams to a satellite.

And the Drake equation assumes that an alien civilization
will be broadcasting at high power in all directions. That
is *enormously* expensive as a quick computation of the power
needed will show. Aliens might not do this at all.

>Perhaps the real interstellar communication would be via laser? Still
>same problems though.

Not so much. You can get a tight beam at high effective power
with little total power. You aim at likely planets (Drake
had no idea of the number of planets out there -- we do and
it is awesome) and hope that they are listening.

We, of course, are listening at the wrong frequencies and might
be missing laser signals totally.

[jillery]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 11:24:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Word.

>> That is a meaningful thing to do and a meaningful thing
>>to discuss. That some people mis-use the Drake Equation to
>>rationalize their own preconceptions does not make it meaningless.
>
>It's meaningful *as a conceptual framework for discussion*.
>Unfortunately, that's not how it's too often invoked, not
>even always due to preconceptions, and those invocations,
>and their derivatives, such as DP "calculations", *are*
>meaningless.

T.O. is full of examples of posters who mis-use and abuse scientific
concepts in order to rationalize their favorite fantasies. Supporters
of science don't say Relativity is meaningless because geocentrists
mangle it. Nor do they say Evolution is meaningless because IDiots
and Creotards cling to their comic book versions. So put the blame
where it belongs, on the mis-users and abusers, and give Drake and his
equation their due.

[jillery]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:37:58 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

The relevance of radio to the Drake equation is that it's a hallmark
of an emergent technical intelligence. He didn't assume such
intelligences would necessarily use radio for deliberate interstellar
communication, but that modulated radio signals would necessarily leak
out, and could be detected. Even now, Earth remains aglow with radio
transmissions, none of which are meant to communicate with ETs, but
still could be detected by them.

If Drake is guilty of anything, it's looking for his carkeys under the
lamppost. Given that subspace communication and tachyon transmitters
have yet to be invented, he might be forgiven for that.

[Paul J Gans]

It is not at all as "aglow with radio transmissions" as it was
50 years ago. Low power cell phone stuff does not count, nor
does radio directed at a satellite.

So the question now becomes: what should stand in for
radio signals? That's a hard question.

It may well be that we have not found alien life simply
because it is alien, the distances are very great, and it
is hard to know what the little green women from Xordax
would consider a "beacon".

>If Drake is guilty of anything, it's looking for his carkeys under the
>lamppost. Given that subspace communication and tachyon transmitters
>have yet to be invented, he might be forgiven for that.

I am in no way blaming Drake. What I am doing is blaming those
who picked up the idea and ran with it when a moments'
reflection would reveal its difficulties.

By the way (thread mix warning!) the speed with which life
seems to have been engendered here on earth makes it entirely
possible that producing life is relatively easy. Given the
number of stellar systems with planets, the local neighborhood
may well be teeming with life.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Skirts? Peanut gallery spectator? I'd prefer Burk and I to assume the
roles vacated by Myers and Moran as balcony muppets Statler and Waldorf.

> Why should I waste my time answering Burk who has you
> killfiled,

Dodge. You are avoiding topic of genetic fallacy broached by Burkhard
(=inability to refute).

> and Hemi who quotes, in extenso, Wikipedia, that is, a site
> where Lindsay Lohan could have written the article?

If so, she did a decent job. Maybe she's a Kekule scholar capable of
actually getting up the nerve to publish something, even if a Wiki
entry. She has some passing familiarity with organic chemistry, though
perhaps not an expertise.

Besides you are engaging in the same sort of genetic fallacy here that
Burkhard was lecturing you about. Whether it was indeed Lohan who did
the Kekule article on Wikipedia which I quoted is not at issue. It was
the actual content of the article I quoted, which was more of a followup
to Burkhard's contention that Kekule dreamt of dancing monkeys than
being directed at you. I had always assumed otherwise (hoop snakes).

But Burkhard did opine: "Where
scientists get their idea from is what Popper called the "context of
discovery", and generally irrelevant for the evaluation of a theory.
Kekule famously dreamt about monkeys dancing in a cricle, which gave
him the idea that Benzenes are ring shaped molecules. That he got the
idea in a dream is irrelevant for the truth of the theory, and this is
generally the case in science. How a scientists gets an idea, or why
he was interested in that specific theory, doesn't matter, theories
stand and fall on thier own."

Where Crick, Peter or whomever exactly gets the idea of DP from isn't as
important as whether it can stand up to scrutiny.

Getting to something still topical, but much less science oriented, I
find no fault in the fact that the backstory of Battlestar Galactica was
influenced by Mormon cosmology. It's what was done with those kernels of
Mormon thought that's important.

Will BSG Blood and Chrome ever get past the pilot stage and become a
full fledged series on a cable network that has lost its way? Sure beats
the abysmal Crapica.

An article possibly written by Lindsay Lohan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica:_Blood_%26_Chrome

> As I already observed you are buying time.

Ironic coming from the guy infamous for not following up to questions
directed at him.

>>
>>> I find your criticism of Peter's DP-FAQ very good.
>>
>> Can you actually say why, or are you just sucking up to Casanova?
>
> I was about to post very similar criticism, then I saw his post. What
> you seem to forget is the fact that DPism resides in nutcase land.

Where do the eels of Atlantis reside?

https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8c7a437b8072efb5?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

[quote you]"In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto
Muck makes
the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
experience. Eels have been ruled by instinct since the Cretaceous Age.
They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did know,
they could not change their instinctual lifestyle." The author
concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better memory than man. It cannot
forget the land in the east. Every larvae, every one of the courting
eels, bears silent witness to Atlantis." "

http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html

Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood. Eels cannot
possess bias and they become excellent evidence for the existence of a
land mass that is no longer there.
[/quote]

And later in the thread:
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1b8edc153b5b34c6?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

[quote you]
ATLANTIs = ATLANTIc

mazATLAN (Mexico) = ATLANtis

ATLAS (mountains) = ATLAntiS

The lost continent obviously provided the name for the Atlantic ocean,
Mazatlan, Mexico, and the Atlas mountains.

Being an evolutionist you should have no trouble seeing the linguistic
evolution and similarities - right ?

May I remind that Atlantis precedes any other name origins as they all
descend from the source (the sunken continent).
[/quote]

Did Lindsay Lohan write that?

> Yes, it seems you actually think DPism has attained some sort of
> respect as a theory. Even a deluded evo like Bob Casanova can wipe the
> floor with your nonsense, Peter.
>
> Don't forget you're on a public forum advocating the falsity of
> Genesis First Cause. Do you really think we Theists are going to lay
> down and issue a free pass? But you also seem to be taking things
> personally. This is about DPism and your advocacy, nothing else.

Genesis First Cause? Which version of Genesis?

>>
>>> I too have
>>> criticism posted upthread. Yet Peter has not responded.
>>
>> YOU, Ray, have ignored the criticism of YOU by Burkhadt. and
>> Hemidactylus. Will you be indulging in blatant double standards by
>> NOT applying your criticism of me to yourself?
>
> Addressed above; yet in addition: You're delaying, dragging your feet.
> Fine. I will wait. You are topic author, not Burk or Hemi. I want
> answers, Peter. I've given your DPism a free ride for too long now. I
> find DPism offensive.

Offensive? It's benign armchair speculation.

>
>>
>>> What he's been
>>> doing is posting trivial messages in other threads,
>>
>> Wrong. I did replies to Marc Tessera which are very germane to the
>> directed panspermia hypothesis.
>
> I've kept track of your posting since this topic was posted. These are
> trivial and could be interpreted several different ways. The fact that
> you are demanding that I answer Burk and Hemi tells me that you want
> to see rebuttal answers ahead of time. That's not going to happen.
> It's time for you to man-up, Peter. Defend your DP hypothesis or
> retract it.

Publish your pap^H^H^ook. Peter is actually showing the gumption to
organize his thoughts into a FAQ which is far more productive work than
I've seen from you over the years, despite the promises. And I don't
think Peter's intent is as nefarious as yours. You want to ruin the
lives of Darwinists. He's merely presenting an alternative view to
earthbound abiogenesis.

Now his behavioral and interpersonal issues are a different story, but
you're hardly Emily Post yourself.

[snip]

[jillery]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:31:48 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

It's technically correct there's less radio emission than before, but
that's not a valid frame of reference. Our civilization still leaks
more EMR than uninhabited planets, and that is what a curious ET
should be looking for. And I would be very much surprised if
satellite transmissions are so tightly focused that none leak out into
space. Snoopy aliens can detect signals of "Game of Thrones" and
"Breaking Bad" at least as easily as the 1936 Munich Olympics.

>So the question now becomes: what should stand in for
>radio signals? That's a hard question.
>
>It may well be that we have not found alien life simply
>because it is alien, the distances are very great, and it
>is hard to know what the little green women from Xordax
>would consider a "beacon".

The Universe is both very large and very old. Most likely most
civilizations remain very small and very young in comparison. Time
and distance are the two great isolators between them.

>>If Drake is guilty of anything, it's looking for his carkeys under the
>>lamppost. Given that subspace communication and tachyon transmitters
>>have yet to be invented, he might be forgiven for that.
>
>I am in no way blaming Drake. What I am doing is blaming those
>who picked up the idea and ran with it when a moments'
>reflection would reveal its difficulties.
>
>By the way (thread mix warning!) the speed with which life
>seems to have been engendered here on earth makes it entirely
>possible that producing life is relatively easy. Given the
>number of stellar systems with planets, the local neighborhood
>may well be teeming with life.

If life started naturally, then life inevitably exists elsewhere in
the Universe. The challenge is for it to last long enough to break
through the isolators of time and distance.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Egads. If aliens derive their assumptions of us from Breaking Bad we are
so screwed. What if they receive Jerry Springer or Jersey Shore? That
"Kardashian" whatever that is that I haven't even attempted to decipher
for possible signal? Prepare the underground fallout shelters ASAP! If
they receive Kardashian signals we might as well not worry about another
asteroid event, as our extinction is guaranteed and well deserved. I
only hope they abduct me first so I can turncoat like Benedict Arnold.
If they tell me they derived their views of Earth from Kardashians you
all are on your own. I am their new best friend.

Ignite the Techno Bass Generator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOt2NnLrjnc

I'm hoping the invasion starts with this guy. I foresaw it years ago.
Pretty sure he's the one who sent the earth starter kit from Throom that
started our evolution.

[Paul J Gans]

I can't agree. Game of Thrones, just for an example, is shown
on a cable-only network. None of it leaks.

But beyond that one needs a very powerful signal to reach
the stars with a detectable intensity. What we have today
doesn't qualify. We are long past the time when a farmer's
tin roof would capture the signal from KDKA (Pittsburgh)
and thanks to some corrosion acting as a rectifier, produce
a listenable signal out in the fields.

As for satellite transmissions, plenty leaks out, but it isn't
a very powerful signal.

Besides, the broadcast signal thing was a science fiction
idea for how alien spaceships in our solar system could
learn english and pick up on our culture.

>>So the question now becomes: what should stand in for
>>radio signals? That's a hard question.
>>
>>It may well be that we have not found alien life simply
>>because it is alien, the distances are very great, and it
>>is hard to know what the little green women from Xordax
>>would consider a "beacon".

>The Universe is both very large and very old. Most likely most
>civilizations remain very small and very young in comparison. Time
>and distance are the two great isolators between them.

I agree.

>>>If Drake is guilty of anything, it's looking for his carkeys under the
>>>lamppost. Given that subspace communication and tachyon transmitters
>>>have yet to be invented, he might be forgiven for that.
>>
>>I am in no way blaming Drake. What I am doing is blaming those
>>who picked up the idea and ran with it when a moments'
>>reflection would reveal its difficulties.
>>
>>By the way (thread mix warning!) the speed with which life
>>seems to have been engendered here on earth makes it entirely
>>possible that producing life is relatively easy. Given the
>>number of stellar systems with planets, the local neighborhood
>>may well be teeming with life.


>If life started naturally, then life inevitably exists elsewhere in
>the Universe. The challenge is for it to last long enough to break
>through the isolators of time and distance.

Yes. And given how different it might be from us, there's also
the problem of finding a signal we (the aliens and us) can agree
is coming from the other.

[Roger Shrubber]

Paul J Gans wrote:

> Besides, the broadcast signal thing was a science fiction
> idea for how alien spaceships in our solar system could
> learn english and pick up on our culture.

It hasn't worked with a generation of young Americans.

[jillery]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 02:15:12 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

You're confusing HBO, which is a production company, with cable
distribution companies. HBO also sells to satellite distribution
companies.

>But beyond that one needs a very powerful signal to reach
>the stars with a detectable intensity. What we have today
>doesn't qualify. We are long past the time when a farmer's
>tin roof would capture the signal from KDKA (Pittsburgh)
>and thanks to some corrosion acting as a rectifier, produce
>a listenable signal out in the fields.

Just how powerful do you think the signal was for the 1936 Munich
Olympics? I am no expert, but I bet most radio and TV transmitters of
today are at least as powerful as that.

>As for satellite transmissions, plenty leaks out, but it isn't
>a very powerful signal.

"isn't very powerful" relative to what?

>Besides, the broadcast signal thing was a science fiction
>idea for how alien spaceships in our solar system could
>learn english and pick up on our culture.

Yeppers. Why do you think I specifically mentioned the 1936 Munich
Olympics?

Only if the intent is to communicate, and so the thread has gone full
circle.

[jillery]

Now you know why the North Koreans want to nuke us.

[Burkhard]

On Apr 7, 2:45�am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2013 08:50 PM, jillery wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:31:48 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> > <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>

> >> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:37:58 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >>> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> >>>>> In article <kjps5i$7i...@reader1.panix.com>,

That's just because your puny human mind is incapable of following the
beauty of a repetitive epic, which describes how every generation of a
family shows allegiance to the state.
Just wait til the Obsidian Order hears about this and deals with you
appropriately

[*Hemidactylus*]

When the Borg come a knockin' I am taking this guy to be my role model:

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

> Just wait til the Obsidian Order hears about this and deals with you
> appropriately

Ahhh, we have already been invaded. I already knew this but have been
sworn to secrecy.

Just like Rowdy Roddy Piper I have found special sunglasses and put them
on during an episode of the Cardassians. Imagine the horror of what I saw:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/Guldukat.jpg

[jonathan]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:6r2ul8tf9ekqhr0p5...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 19:40:32 -0400, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:

>>So this is how the 'scientific' world views their God?
>
> Science has nothing to do with deities, pro or con; they are
> simply irrelevant to scientific research.



I was speaking figuratively, but what if the ultimate source
of existence turns to be a system property, not the result
of any specific object, force or 'equation'? What if the
source of creation is a ...collective...property of the whole?
A system property such as a market force or natural
selection?

System components can be exactly defined, quantified
and are open to objective methods of proof.
System properties...are not, they're subjective and
constantly changing, non-linear behavior where the
output and input often have no direct relationships.

One is knowable in the scientific sense, the other is
unknowable in the same terms. Without a science
devoted to the subjective realm, nature will remain
a mystery.

So how can science remove itself from a subjective
concept such as God and still be considered a science
devoted to understanding how nature works?



Jonathan


s



> HTH.
>
> <snip>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:05:58 -0400, the following appeared

Yep. Sort of... ;-)

>>> That is a meaningful thing to do and a meaningful thing
>>>to discuss. That some people mis-use the Drake Equation to
>>>rationalize their own preconceptions does not make it meaningless.
>>
>>It's meaningful *as a conceptual framework for discussion*.
>>Unfortunately, that's not how it's too often invoked, not
>>even always due to preconceptions, and those invocations,
>>and their derivatives, such as DP "calculations", *are*
>>meaningless.
>
>
>T.O. is full of examples of posters who mis-use and abuse scientific
>concepts in order to rationalize their favorite fantasies. Supporters
>of science don't say Relativity is meaningless because geocentrists
>mangle it. Nor do they say Evolution is meaningless because IDiots
>and Creotards cling to their comic book versions. So put the blame
>where it belongs, on the mis-users and abusers, and give Drake and his
>equation their due.

My intent was to do exactly that, and I suspect Drake, Sagan
et al would agree with everything I wrote, despite Peter's
attempt to invoke their support for his fantasies.

[hersheyh]

On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 5:02:28 PM UTC-4, pnyikos wrote:
> Section A (specifically, the reply to A7) is mentioned in the draft of
>
> E4, so I am reposting the latest version here.
>
>
>
> A. Origins of the Theory of Directed Panspermia
>
> .
>
>
>
> A1. What is directed panspermia?
>
>
>
> REPLY: It is the theory that was introduced by Nobel Laureate
>
> biochemist
>
> Francis Crick and another distinguished biochemist, Leslie Orgel. As
>
> they put it, it is
>
>
>
> "the theory that organisms were deliberately
>
> transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings
>
> on another planet."
>
> -- Icarus 19 (1973) 341-346
>
> http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf
>
>
>
> All quotes from them below are taken from this same source. Another
>
> website with the same article in more easily readable form [though
>
> containing some typos] can be found here:
>
>
>
> http://www.checktheevidence.com/Disclosure/PDF%20Documents/Directed%20Panspermi\
>
> a%20F.%20H.%20C.%20CRICK%20AND%20L.%20E.%20Orgel.pdf
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> A2. How does directed panspermia relate to the "spore theory" of
>
> Arrhenius and the "comet theory" of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe?
>
>
>
> REPLY: These theories, which predate the theory of directed
>
> panspermia, also
>
> come under the heading of "panspermia." However, they are like
>
> directed panspermia only insofar as they hypothesize that life as we
>
> know it on earth began elsewhere. That is, microorganisms reached
>
> earth from elsewhere and evolved into all other forms of earth life.
>
> But unlike Crick and Orgel, these scientists did not assume any
>
> intelligent agents had anything to do with the "transmission."
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> A3. What kinds of organisms and what means of transmission did Crick
>
> and Orgel hypothesize?
>
>
>
> REPLY:
>
> "Could life have started on Earth as a
>
> result of infection by microorganisms
>
> sent here deliberately by a technological
>
> society on another planet, by means
>
> of a special long range unmanned spaceship?"
>
>
>
> A little later in the article, they get very specific, but only for
>
> illustrative purposes; their general theory is as above.
>
>
>
> "The spaceship would carry large samples
>
> of a number of microorganisms,
>
> each having different but simple
>
> nutritional requirements, for example
>
> bluegreen algae, which could grow
>
> on CO2, and water in `sunlight.
>
> A payload of 1000kg might be made up
>
> of 10 samples each containing 10^16
>
> microorganisms, or 100 samples each of
>
> 10^15 microorganisms.
>
>
The original life on earth could not be an aerobic bacteria
like blue-green algae. Early life was anaerobic and, given
the common core of metabolism, likely extracted energy
from redox reactions with minerals. Moreover, it would have
to have been quite heat resistant. O2-producing organisms
like blue-green algae came much later.
>
> A4. Didn't Crick and Orgel consider the sending of organisms other
>
> than microorganisms?
>
>
>
> REPLY: Yes, but only to comparatively nearby planetary systems. As
>
> Crick
>
> later put it several times in _Life Itself_, "prokaryotes travel
>
> farther". He and Orgel put it this way:
>
>
>
> "It may be possible in the future to
>
> send either mice or men or elaborate
>
> instruments to the planets of other
>
> Solar Systems (as so often described
>
> in science fiction) but a rocket
>
> carrying microorganisms will always
>
> have a much greater effective range
>
> and so be advantageous if the sole aim
>
> is to spread life."
>
>
>
> They go on to give several reasons immediately afterwards.
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> A5. What kinds of "unmanned spaceships" did Crick and Orgel have in
>
> mind?
>
>
>
> REPLY: Very slow ones, considering the vast distances between
>
> planetary
>
> systems.
>
>
>
> "It would not be necessary to accelerate
>
> the spaceship to extremely high velocities,
>
> since its time of arrival would not be important.
>
> The radius of our galaxy is about 10^5 light years,
>
> so we could infect most planets in the galaxy
>
> within 10^8 yr by means of a spaceship travelling
>
> at only onethousandths of the velocity of light.
>
> Several thousand stars are within a hundred light
>
> years of the Earth and could be reached within as
>
> little as a million years by a spaceship travelling
>
> at 60,000 mph, or within 10,000 yr if a speed
>
> one-hundredth of that of light were possible."
>
But remember that this involves sending those spacecraft
(and there would have to be many of them) out starting more
than 4 billion years before the present. Given that the
thin disk of our Galaxy has an age of about 9 billion years
and nearly all the metal rich stars are found in that thin
disk, that means that (given that life formed on some
planet in that disk and that it took *at least* as long to
evolve a sentient technology on that planet from a bacterial
start on this planet (the original planet would not have
the benefit of a head start on forming life, like you propose
for the earth) that we are talking about a planet where life
started some 8 billion years ago. Moreover, given the need
for metals in many aspects of technology (and life-as-we
know-it's metabolism) the fact that older stars tend to be
metal poor means that, because we are concerned about the
star population some 8-9 billion years ago (our Galaxy and
the oldest stars in it are about 14 billion years old), I think
that the timing is a bit too tight for panspermy to be the
best explanation of life on earth. Not impossible, but not
the likliest explanation.
>
> Unbeknownst to Crick and Orgel, in the same year this appeared, a
>
> think tank of the British Interplanetary Society went to work
>
> designing a spaceship almost within reach of our technology, capable
>
> of speeds of about one-tenth of the speed of light. More about this,
>
> and another such project within our technological abilities right now,
>
> will appear in a later section of this FAQ.
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> A6. How did Crick and Orgel imagine that microorganisms could stay
>
> alive that long?
>
>
>
> REPLY:
>
> "The question of how long microorganisms,
>
> and in particular bacterial spores,
>
> could survive in a spaceship
>
> has been considered in a preliminary way
>
> by Sneath (1962). He concludes
>
> `that life could probably be preserved
>
> for periods of more than a million years
>
> if suitably protected and maintained
>
> at temperatures close to absolute zero.'
>
> Sagan (1960) has given a comparable estimate
>
> of the effects of radiation damage."
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> A7. What evidence did Crick and Orgel give for the theory of directed
>
> panspermia?
>
>
>
> REPLY: The the scientific evidence was indirect, and admittedly weak.
>
> It took
>
> two forms. One was the near-universality of the genetic code. [There
>
> is one variation in ciliates and a few others in various mitochondria,
>
> but the differences are very minor and point to a common ancestral
>
> source.]
>
>
> It is a little surprising that organisms
>
> with somewhat different codes do not coexist.
>
> The universality of the code follows
>
> naturally from infective theory
>
> of the origins of life. Life on earth
>
> would represent a clone derived
>
> from a single extraterrestrial organism.
>
> Even if many codes were represented at
>
> the primary site where life began, only a
>
> single one might have operated in
>
> the organisms used to infect the Earth.
>
I would not find the consensus genetic code surprising in either case.
Moreover, there is good reason to think that the consensus code is
not *completely* randomly assigned, but an evolved system.
>
> Of course, they acknowledged that there were various theories for the
>
> near-universality of the code, "but none is generally accepted to be
>
> completely convincing." [ibid.] Here is their other piece of strictly
>
> scientific evidence:
>
>
>
> Molybdenum is an essential trace element
>
> that plays an important role in many
>
> enzymatic reactions, while chromium
>
> and nickel are relatively unimportant
>
> in biochemistry. The abundance of chromium,
>
> nickel, and molybdenum on the Earth are 0.20,
>
> 3.16, and 0.02%, respectively. We cannot
>
> conclude anything from this single example,
>
> since molybdenum may be irreplaceable in
>
> some essential reaction -- nitrogen fixation,
>
> for example. However, if it could be shown
>
> that the elements represented in terrestrial
>
> living organisms correlate closely with those
>
> that are abundant in some class of star ... we
>
> might look more sympathetically at "infective�
>
> theories.

I found no evidence of molybdenum rich type I (metal rich) stars.
Some type II (metal poor) stars are enriched, but these stars
are at least one log lower on the metalicity scale, so the "richness"
is only relative to the other metals. It is not particularly
surprizing that Mo (at wt 42) is less common than Cr (at wt 24).
Why the comparison with Ni (at. wt 28), which is at a different
column on the periodic table, is relevant I don't know.
>
And the entire idea of panspermy does indeed beg the question of determining
what conditions are optimal for the formation of life. Whether life
arose on this or on another planet is less interesting than determining
what conditions led to life.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:24:45 -0400, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:6r2ul8tf9ekqhr0p5...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 19:40:32 -0400, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:
>
>>>So this is how the 'scientific' world views their God?
>>
>> Science has nothing to do with deities, pro or con; they are
>> simply irrelevant to scientific research.
>
>
>
>I was speaking figuratively, but what if the ultimate source
>of existence turns to be a system property, not the result
>of any specific object, force or 'equation'? What if the
>source of creation is a ...collective...property of the whole?
>A system property such as a market force or natural
>selection?

Unclear. Are you conjecturing that the "source of creation"
(mankind? life? the universe?) necessarily predates the
"creation"? How would that work in the case of the universe,
barring some supernatural motivator, whether or not it's
called a deity?

>System components can be exactly defined, quantified
>and are open to objective methods of proof.
>System properties...are not, they're subjective and
>constantly changing, non-linear behavior where the
>output and input often have no direct relationships.
>
>One is knowable in the scientific sense, the other is
>unknowable in the same terms. Without a science
>devoted to the subjective realm, nature will remain
>a mystery.

How does one devote scientific inquiry which has certain
constraints, among which is objective observation, to a
"subjective realm" which by definition *has* no objective
existence? Science can investigate subjective phenomena, but
only to the extent that such phenomena produce
objectively-observable consequences.

>So how can science remove itself from a subjective
>concept such as God and still be considered a science
>devoted to understanding how nature works?

Easily, since the supernatural is by definition neither a
part of nature nor constrained by it, and science is about
investigating nature.

[Paul J Gans]

Well, there you are!

On the other hand, as many have suggested, perhaps they
are space aliens?

[Paul J Gans]

Today, transmission strength is regulated. Back a long ways,
it wasn't.

>>As for satellite transmissions, plenty leaks out, but it isn't
>>a very powerful signal.


>"isn't very powerful" relative to what?

Relative to the inverse square decline in strength four or
more light years out. That signal would have to be picked
out of the "noise" from the planet's central star. SETI
assumes that the aliens have a sufficiently advanced system
that they can afford the power.

An example is given at

http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Theory/antenna.htm

down at the bottom of the page. A calculation is done for
a 100 watt transmitter's field strength 10 km away. The
result is 0.00547 volts/meter or 5.47 millivolts/meter.

Scale this result by dividing it by 4 light years expressed
as kilometers, not forgetting to square the result. At
4 light years this is about 1.5 trillion. That makes the
signal strength about 3.6x10^(-12) millivolts per meter.
You can scale this up by increasing the power of the
transmitter giving a factor somewere in the neighborhood
of a thousand. And one can increase antenna efficiency
by a factor of about 10. The result is a field strength
of about 3x10^(-8) millivolts per meter, which is very
small.

Now this is a back of the envelope calculation, the
actuality is more complex and depends on other factors,
including galactic noise at the frequency of interest
and bandwidth. But it does show the problem.

Don't they all? ;-)

[Paul J Gans]

That's a picture of me when I was younger.

[Paul J Gans]

hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 5:02:28 PM UTC-4, pnyikos wrote:

[very large snip]

[another large snip]

This is an excellent point.

And so far, except for some crude estimates, nobody has
really figured the cost of such a project. It would,
if all will forgive me, likely be astronomical.

[jillery]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 11:04:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Fo' shizzle

>>>> That is a meaningful thing to do and a meaningful thing
>>>>to discuss. That some people mis-use the Drake Equation to
>>>>rationalize their own preconceptions does not make it meaningless.
>>>
>>>It's meaningful *as a conceptual framework for discussion*.
>>>Unfortunately, that's not how it's too often invoked, not
>>>even always due to preconceptions, and those invocations,
>>>and their derivatives, such as DP "calculations", *are*
>>>meaningless.
>>
>>
>>T.O. is full of examples of posters who mis-use and abuse scientific
>>concepts in order to rationalize their favorite fantasies. Supporters
>>of science don't say Relativity is meaningless because geocentrists
>>mangle it. Nor do they say Evolution is meaningless because IDiots
>>and Creotards cling to their comic book versions. So put the blame
>>where it belongs, on the mis-users and abusers, and give Drake and his
>>equation their due.
>
>My intent was to do exactly that, and I suspect Drake, Sagan
>et al would agree with everything I wrote, despite Peter's
>attempt to invoke their support for his fantasies.

Even though I still have my doubts that Drake would approve of calling
his namesake equation a "guess", I am more than happy to agree
unconditionally with everything else you wrote.

[jillery]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:13:42 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>>>>>>The relevance of radio to the Drake equation is that it's a hallmark
>>>>>>of an emergent technical intelligence. He didn't assume such
>>>>>>intelligences would necessarily use radio for deliberate interstellar
>>>>>>communication, but that modulated radio signals would necessarily leak
>>>>>>out, and could be detected. Even now, Earth remains aglow with radio
>>>>>>transmissions, none of which are meant to communicate with ETs, but
>>>>>>still could be detected by them.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is not at all as "aglow with radio transmissions" as it was
>>>>>50 years ago. Low power cell phone stuff does not count, nor
>>>>>does radio directed at a satellite.
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's technically correct there's less radio emission than before, but
>>>>that's not a valid frame of reference. Our civilization still leaks
>>>>more EMR than uninhabited planets, and that is what a curious ET
>>>>should be looking for. And I would be very much surprised if
>>>>satellite transmissions are so tightly focused that none leak out into
>>>>space. Snoopy aliens can detect signals of "Game of Thrones" and
>>>>"Breaking Bad" at least as easily as the 1936 Munich Olympics.
>>>
>>>I can't agree. Game of Thrones, just for an example, is shown
>>>on a cable-only network. None of it leaks.
>
>
>>You're confusing HBO, which is a production company, with cable
>>distribution companies. HBO also sells to satellite distribution
>>companies.

I note no reply. I'll just assume you recognize the error.

>>>But beyond that one needs a very powerful signal to reach
>>>the stars with a detectable intensity. What we have today
>>>doesn't qualify. We are long past the time when a farmer's
>>>tin roof would capture the signal from KDKA (Pittsburgh)
>>>and thanks to some corrosion acting as a rectifier, produce
>>>a listenable signal out in the fields.
>
>
>>Just how powerful do you think the signal was for the 1936 Munich
>>Olympics? I am no expert, but I bet most radio and TV transmitters of
>>today are at least as powerful as that.
>
>Today, transmission strength is regulated. Back a long ways,
>it wasn't.

Back when rf transmissions were unregulated, technology didn't support
high-power transmitters. You specifically wrote "50 years ago", and
by then rf transmissions were well-regulated by most nations.

>>>As for satellite transmissions, plenty leaks out, but it isn't
>>>a very powerful signal.
>
>
>>"isn't very powerful" relative to what?
>
>Relative to the inverse square decline in strength four or
>more light years out. That signal would have to be picked
>out of the "noise" from the planet's central star. SETI
>assumes that the aliens have a sufficiently advanced system
>that they can afford the power.

I accept the technical veracity of what you wrote below. However, it
applies to all rf transmissions, both past and present. From it, one
might conclude that rf transmissions could never be an effective means
of detecting extrasolar civilizations. And that's an arguable point
if you choose to make that argument.

But that wasn't your original argument. Your comment above
specifically compared rf emissions of today with those from 50 years
ago. Do you moot your original argument?

>An example is given at
>
> http://www.zen22142.zen.co.uk/Theory/antenna.htm
>
>down at the bottom of the page. A calculation is done for
>a 100 watt transmitter's field strength 10 km away. The
>result is 0.00547 volts/meter or 5.47 millivolts/meter.
>
>Scale this result by dividing it by 4 light years expressed
>as kilometers, not forgetting to square the result. At
>4 light years this is about 1.5 trillion. That makes the
>signal strength about 3.6x10^(-12) millivolts per meter.
>You can scale this up by increasing the power of the
>transmitter giving a factor somewere in the neighborhood
>of a thousand. And one can increase antenna efficiency
>by a factor of about 10. The result is a field strength
>of about 3x10^(-8) millivolts per meter, which is very
>small.
>
>Now this is a back of the envelope calculation, the
>actuality is more complex and depends on other factors,
>including galactic noise at the frequency of interest
>and bandwidth. But it does show the problem.
>
>>>Besides, the broadcast signal thing was a science fiction
>>>idea for how alien spaceships in our solar system could
>>>learn english and pick up on our culture.
>
>>Yeppers. Why do you think I specifically mentioned the 1936 Munich
>>Olympics?

I note no answer.


[...]

[Paul J Gans]

Jillery: There are very few TV stations left broadcasting
a signal over the air. These are usually NBC, CBS, or ABC
(with some FOX) stations. The production company doesn't
matter. If you see it on a cable station, it is NOT being
broadcast over the air. That's what cable does.

Satellite distribution doesn't help. Those signals are
beamed down to earth, not out to space.

>>>>But beyond that one needs a very powerful signal to reach
>>>>the stars with a detectable intensity. What we have today
>>>>doesn't qualify. We are long past the time when a farmer's
>>>>tin roof would capture the signal from KDKA (Pittsburgh)
>>>>and thanks to some corrosion acting as a rectifier, produce
>>>>a listenable signal out in the fields.
>>
>>
>>>Just how powerful do you think the signal was for the 1936 Munich
>>>Olympics? I am no expert, but I bet most radio and TV transmitters of
>>>today are at least as powerful as that.
>>
>>Today, transmission strength is regulated. Back a long ways,
>>it wasn't.


>Back when rf transmissions were unregulated, technology didn't support
>high-power transmitters. You specifically wrote "50 years ago", and
>by then rf transmissions were well-regulated by most nations.

You are right and my memory was wrong. Google is very quiet
on the subject, but there were 500,000 watt "border blasters"
built on the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border blasting
away at US customers back in the late 1930s.

The first 50,000 watt US station seems to have been WLW which
began broadcasting (with FCC approval) back in 1928. It was
(and is) located in Cincinatti, OH. There was an experimental
transmitter there that broadcast at 500,000 watts. (See

http://www.oldradio.com/archives/stations/cinc/wlwpix.htm

if you are an old-timer nostalgic for such things.) The tubes
in that thing were multiple UV-862s, made by RCA. They were
100,000 watt triodes with water-cooled anodes.

As far as I can find, we've never used more than 500,000 watts.

>>>>As for satellite transmissions, plenty leaks out, but it isn't
>>>>a very powerful signal.
>>
>>
>>>"isn't very powerful" relative to what?
>>
>>Relative to the inverse square decline in strength four or
>>more light years out. That signal would have to be picked
>>out of the "noise" from the planet's central star. SETI
>>assumes that the aliens have a sufficiently advanced system
>>that they can afford the power.


>I accept the technical veracity of what you wrote below. However, it
>applies to all rf transmissions, both past and present. From it, one
>might conclude that rf transmissions could never be an effective means
>of detecting extrasolar civilizations. And that's an arguable point
>if you choose to make that argument.

>But that wasn't your original argument. Your comment above
>specifically compared rf emissions of today with those from 50 years
>ago. Do you moot your original argument?

No, I was wrong about transmitter power back then.

What is there to say? My point is that radio, as we know
it, won't do the job.

[Mark Isaak]

A SETI talk I went to once made the point that our stray radio emissions
would not be distinguishable from noise beyond, IIRC, 30 light years. A
directed transmission could go much, much further, effectively anywhere
in the galaxy not blocked by too much dust, but only along one line; we
could not broadcast to all of space. Nor, for any reasonable cost,
could aliens broadcast widely. SETI is looking for beams aimed directly
at us.

--
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

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 03:11:10 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

Don't forgot PBS, they broadcast my favorite programs. Most of the
old analog stations now broadcast DTV over the air, as required by
law. According to this:

<http://transition.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/>

there are 401 stations in just the U.S. Not counting other nations.
Not counting radio stations. Cable has not replaced broadcast.

>Satellite distribution doesn't help. Those signals are
>beamed down to earth, not out to space.

Shirley: you don't believe those signals originate from the
satellites?

Ok, then all your comments wrt past vs. present aren't relevant to
your point.

[jillery]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 21:43:07 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

[...]

>A SETI talk I went to once made the point that our stray radio emissions
>would not be distinguishable from noise beyond, IIRC, 30 light years. A
>directed transmission could go much, much further, effectively anywhere
>in the galaxy not blocked by too much dust, but only along one line; we
>could not broadcast to all of space. Nor, for any reasonable cost,
>could aliens broadcast widely. SETI is looking for beams aimed directly
>at us.

OTOH it would time prohibitive to cover the entire sky aiming at one
random point at a time. To use a focused beam, there has to be some
reason to target a particular spot, to reduce the odds that one isn't
wasting time and money transmitting where and when nobody is
listening. This illustrates how much more challenging it is to be the
active cosmic transmitter than the passive cosmic receiver, and is why
we don't do it more often than we have.

Given the size of even a single galaxy, perhaps a serious SETI
civilization could figure out a way to modulate an entire star, using
some technology currently unknown to us. That would solve the problem
of broadcasting across the entire sky.

[Mark Isaak]

There's a much simpler, if not quite as effective, method: shadow
semaphores. Put a few very large, opaque sheets in orbit around the
sun, so that, viewed from the plane of the orbit, they occlude the sun
at obviously artificial intervals (e.g., 2 blids, shadow, 3 blids,
shadow, 5 blids, shadow, 2 blids, shadow, 3 blids, shadow, 5 blids,
shadow, ...). The aliens could even make solar collectors of the
semaphores and recoup some of the cost. They still would not signal to
the whole sky, but it gives orders of magnitude more coverage than
beamed signals.

[pnyikos]

On Apr 5, 8:11�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:34:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >wrote:
>
> [big snip]
>
> >>True. But my point was that, since every term in the Drake
> >>Equation past f_p is nothing more than a guess with zero
> >>actual supporting evidence, both the DE and DP (for which we
> >>also have zero evidence) are "what-if" conjectures. *No*
> >>numbers, even tentative ones, can be assigned to the terms
> >>on which the rest of the DE terms, and thus the derivative
> >>DP "calculations", are based.

> >Yeppers, and you made your point very clearly. �Still, these topics

> >tend to get obfuscated more than others, and focusing on the
> >differences might be a way to mitigate that.
>
> If one is interested in computing a quantity that is the
> product of other quantities (the Drake Equation is like
> this), having even ONE factor whose value is unknown and
> whose bounds are extremely large means that the result
> is meaningless.

Why don't you take off the scientist's cap that you wear so clumsily
and put on your humanist's cap? You might start by engaging your
sense of wonder at the universe and asking yourself whether any of the
stars you see at night have life-bearing planets circling around them.

Atheist though you are, you might be able to grok the deeper message
behind the famous line,

"A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

If you can grok it, perhaps you can appreciate the efforts of us
wonder-filled folk to reach for the stars, figuratively speaking, by
pondering the individual factors in the Drake equation, even though we
cannot grasp their numerical values at the present time.

Begin qualitiatively: try ordering the factors that are fractions in
the order of what you think they are, from smallest to largest.

If you know something about paleontology,, you might even try ranking
the factors into which I have split f_i.

Recall that f_i is the fraction of suitable planets where life has
begun, that
go on to develop intelligent life.

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

Where e_j is the fraction of planets with organisms at Stage j going
on to evolve organisms at Stage j+1. The stages chosen in the above
posts are represented by the following organisms:

Stage 1: prokaryotes (bacteria, archae)

Stage 2: sexually reproducing eukaryotes

Stage 3: metazoans

Stage 4: lower chordates, mollusks, arthropods

Stage 5: primitive tetrapods

Stage 6: prosimians, *Saurornithoides*, raccoons

Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*

But you don't know anything about paleontology, do you?

Anyway, you do seem to have some talent as a science fiction writer,
because you are talking like a time traveler into the very near future
below:

[snip for focus:]

> The radio stage on earth lasted about 100 years or less.
> Easy to miss such signals from other star systems.

[snip Gans's two cents' worth about the Drake equation, give or take a
couple of cents]

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:29:35 -0700, Mark Isaak

That's the right idea. The point being it does almost no good to
broadcast a tight beam to a random spot in the sky for even a few
years unless one has a very high confidence someone will be listening
when the signal finally gets there. SETI transmitters have to work
continuously, like harbor buoys in space, and cover not only a large
area of the sky, but also across a broad spectrum of frequencies, in
order to increase the chances that a civilization will have something
to find when they get around to looking for it. Anything less is just
a waste of time.

[pnyikos]

On Apr 5, 9:51�ｿｽpm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 5, 5:18�ｿｽpm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:43:21 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >Has jillery un-killfiled me? �ｿｽOr has she switched to a different
> >> >posting service?
>
> >> If you knew anything about kill filters

What's knowledge of kill filters supposed to do with it? How is
anyone supposed to ascertain whether you have me in a killfile without
hacking into your account?

> >> or usenet headers, you
> >> wouldn't ask such a silly question.
>
> >Wrong "if". �ｿｽCorrect is, "if it took you less time to study and
> >compare my post headers than it does to type out these questions,..."

And, of course, it takes a lot *more* time.

> So you admit you could have answered your own question,

There were two questions.

> but didn't
> even bother. �ｿｽNo surprise there.

The surprise would have occurred if ANYONE wanted to waste the amount
of time it takes to pore over headers, given your past behavior in
sci.bio.paleontology.

You encountered me in an on-topic post in that newsgroup, and promptly
whined about how you had neglected to put me in your killfile for that
newsgroup.

I'd ask you if you killfiled me for that newsgroup then and there, but
you'd probably sneer at me for not taking the trouble to hack into
your account to discover for myself whether I had been
killfiled. :-)

> >> >anyway, here she is replying directly to me.
>
> >> Can't slip anything past you.
>
> >> <snip remainder of useless post>
>
> >I'm glad you thought it was useless to repost your earlier comments in
> >context.
>
> My earlier comments were already in context before you mangled them.
> I restored them in context. �ｿｽYou mangled them again. �ｿｽYour mangling of
> my comments remains useless

You restored them, period. You snipped all the context of that one
paragraph you reposted.

You seem to dislike Usenet's greatest advantage over every other forum
I've participated in: the fact that people interested in getting at
the truth can insert comments exactly where they are most relevant.
The few other forums that allow it use a clumsy big-indentation format
which quickly narrows lines down to a few letters in width.

Ron O is your kindred spirit in this: he rails against me when I do
it, only he uses the loaded term "manipulating" for what I do to his
prose.

> >This means it was useless for you to repost what you wrote
> >earlier-- or would mean it if you weren't the quintessential "do as I
> >say, not as I do" person.
>
> Actually this means you're a babbling idiot.

Actually, you are behaving like a six year old smart alec in this last
line of yours. Pee Wee Herman could take lessons from you.

Peter Nyikos

[Paul J Gans]

Yes, and the very things that preclude our contacting *them* also
may well keep *them* from contacting us.

[pnyikos]

On Apr 5, 10:18�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 9:15�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On Apr 4, 6:24�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 4, 11:00�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:


> > > > Let's be clear on this: DP is an *assumption*; there is
> > > > *zero* evidence either for or against it.
>
> > DP is a *hypothesis*, not an assumption. �I draw no conclusions from
> > it.
>
> > And homegrown abiogenesis (as opposed to abiogenesis, period) is in
> > the same Casanova boat: there is �*zero* evidence either for or
> > against it.

No comment to this, Ray? Why are you handing victory over to Casanova
below if you have nothing to rebut what I say to him above?

> > YOU, Ray, have ignored the criticism of YOU by Burkhardt. and
> > Hemidactylus. �Will you be indulging in blatant double standards by
> > NOT applying your criticism of me to yourself?
>
> Professor Nyikos �hiding behind the skirts of two peanut gallery
> spectators?

Ad hominem fallacy noted.

> Why should I waste my time answering Burk who has you
> killfiled, and Hemi who quotes, in extenso, Wikipedia, that is, a site
> where Lindsay Lohan could have written the article?

Do you consider yourself to be more knowledgeable or talented than
Lindsay Lohan? on what grounds? did Gene Scott shower praises on
you?

>
> As I already observed you are buying time.

...glass houses...stones.

I've shoved FAQ entry B9 in your face many times, and you're STILL
buying time for thinking up a rebuttlal to it. Here it is again:

B9: Is directed panspermia incompatible with Christian faith?

REPLY: No, why should it be, when the Bible makes no mention of
microorganisms? Even if one takes an absolutely literalist view of
Genesis, the arrival of unicellular life on earth could be fit into
either the second day or the beginning of the third day of creation.

The plants that are mentioned on the third day are eukaryotes, which
function better if there is plenty of oxygen in the air. And, of
course, animals could not live without large amounts of oxygen. There
were only trace amounts of oxygen on earth when it was first formed,
and the oxygen that subsequently became an important component of the
atmosphere is due to photosynthesis, especially by cyanobacteria,
during the billions of years before the plant kingdom arose.

The theory of directed panspermia dovetails scientifically with the
theory of naturalistic evolution, but it is also compatible with God
creating every earth species after the first infusion. As for the
microorganisms sent by the panspermists, they in turn could have been
the product of divine creation, if one insists on going the whole nine
yards with species immutability.

Directed panspermia is even quite in the spirit of Genesis 6 through
8, where Noah is depicted as saving the animals from the great flood
and then (8: 17-19) sends them out from the ark to swarm and multiply
all over the earth. Substitute the spacecraft delivering the microbes
for the ark, and the analogy is very good.
=============end of FAQ entry

> > > I find your criticism of Peter's DP-FAQ very good.
>
> > Can you actually say why, or are you just sucking up to Casanova?

From what you say below, it seems the answers are NO and YES
respectively.

> I was about to post very similar criticism, then I saw his post. What
> you seem to forget is the fact that DPism resides in nutcase land.

Fallacy of begging the question noted.

And this from a nutcase whose WHOLE case against DPism is its alleged
conflict with the Bible.

> Yes, it seems you actually think DPism has attained some sort of
> respect as a theory. Even a deluded evo like Bob Casanova can wipe the
> floor with your nonsense, Peter.

Still sucking up to Casanova as a substitute for dealing with B9,
aren't you?


> Don't forget you're on a public forum advocating the falsity of
> Genesis First Cause.

I am doing nothing of the sort. Read the answer to FAQ entry B9 until
it sinks in.

> Do you really think we Theists are going to lay
> down and issue a free pass?

These taunts merely cover up the fact that you are running away from
FAQ entry B9.

> But you also seem to be taking things
> personally. This is about DPism and your advocacy, nothing else.

I'll believe you when you deal with the content of the above FAQ
entry.

[snip for focus]

> I've given your DPism a free ride for too long now.

On the contrary, you've been its implacable foe from the get-go.

> I find DPism offensive.

And if you had any powers of self-evaluation, you'd recognize this
"finding" as irrational emotionalism.

[snip additional stalling on B9 by you]

> PS: In a post upthread you accuse me of being dishonest. Do dishonest
> people issue genuine apologies (like I have)?

People are seldom 100% honest or 100% dishonest. In fact, I think
anyone who is more than 10% dishonest in *everything* he says is
locked away in a padded cell.

> And if I'm as you say
> when will my name be placed among the unMagnificent seven?

When you've gone completely over to their side.

If you are a Loki, as I sometimes suspect, it might not take long
now. You seem to have been successful in driving Pagano and Kalkidas
away from talk.origins. Is there any creationist of their stature
posting here any more?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 6, 2:18�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:23:42 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 5, 2:24�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:08:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >I wonder whether
> >> >your bootlicker, Ray Martinez
>
> >> Nice, Peter; you've entered personal attack mode even
> >> earlier than usual. So it's your opinion that anyone who
> >> agrees with a criticism of your assertions is a
> >> "bootlicker"?
>
> >No, it's my assertion that anyone like Martinez, who acts as though he
> >hates atheists and evolutionists, then turns around and praises them
> >against people like myself and (worse yet) fellow creationists, is a
> >bootlicker.
>
> This comment is very revealing, since it avoids addressing
> the subject in favor of a personality attack.

It is a direct answer to your question, in reply to a post of yours
which had no other topic to address in it.

And so, the only revealing thing here is your hypocrisy in saying what
you did just now.


> >He seems to hate his fellow Christians, like myself, and fellow
> >creationists, like Pagano and Kalkidas, far more than he hates any of
> >your kind.
[snip for focus]

> >> You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
>
> >Actually, I am convinced that it is Ray who has no idea what he is
> >talking about when he praises you the way he did.
>
> I'll be able to evaluate that when you provide a refutation
> of my post.

You are being polemical instead of rational. You would ONLY be able
to evaluate that if RAY were to post something that he thinks is a
support of some things you wrote.

So far, he's merely indulged in a broken record routine, alleging how
you supposedly wiped the floor with me.

> So far you haven't.

This comment may be very revealing. You seem oblivious to something I
learned after less than a month of posting to Usenet in 1992.

And that is that arguments and counter-arguments seldom
count for much in a politically charged newsgroup like this one.
It is in the counter-counter arguments, and counter-counter-counter
arguments that one may start to get a feel for where the truth might
lie. And even those are of little or no value when one of the parties
is holding what he thinks is the real knockdown argument in reserve.

> >> Anyone familiar with my exchanges with Ray over the past few
> >> years would realize your comment is ludicrous,
>
> >Enemies can turn into allies very easily, and vice versa, on
> >politically charged newsgroups like this one. �I've seen it happen
> >time and time again.
>
> And again you attempt to shift a question of the merits of
> the subject to one of personalities.

There is no subject shift from your claim that precedes it, hypocrite.

> >Besides, I have often suspected Ray of being a Loki. �His persona is
> >so crashingly incompetent, hypocritical, insincere and dishonest that
> >the hypothesis that he is trying to make non-atheists look bad
> >deserves serious consideration.
>
> >> but all you
> >> can see is the agreement on this issue, and you respond
> >> according to your (apparent) nature.
>
> >You are projecting the nature of your fellow unMagnificent Seven
> >members, jillery and O'Shea, onto me. �When they saw me say I thought
> >UC had the upper hand in a dispute about the correct usage of the word
> >"ape" jillery *graphically* accused me of having a homosexual
> >relationship with UC, and O'Shea loved it.
>
> Missed that, and UC was incorrect by current usage, as was
> shown him in several posts (which he ignored).

But *I* didn't ignore those counter-arguments, and my counter-counter
arguments are summarized below.

[snip for focus]

> >Do you agree that we are coelenterates?

Ducking of question noted.

> >Unless you do, or unless you deny that we are *descended* *from*
> >coelenterates, you are implicitly agreeing with me that UC had the
> >upper hand in that dispute.
>
> I ignored that "dispute"; sorry 'bout that. It's not all
> about you, and I'm still waiting for you to refute what I
> posted.

You'll get counter-arguments to your arguments, and then we'll see
what counter-counter arguments you come up with. The real fun might
start soon after that.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 20:42:37 -0400, the following appeared

Possibly, although IIRC even Drake said that the values
assigned to the terms *were* guesses.

>, I am more than happy to agree
>unconditionally with everything else you wrote.

Careful; Peter will call you a "bootlicker", his term for
anyone who agrees with one who disagrees with him. But
thanks.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:40:17 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Apr 5, 9:51�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> >On Apr 5, 5:18�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:43:21 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> >> >Has jillery un-killfiled me? �Or has she switched to a different

>> >> >posting service?
>>
>> >> If you knew anything about kill filters
>
>What's knowledge of kill filters supposed to do with it? How is
>anyone supposed to ascertain whether you have me in a killfile without
>hacking into your account?
>
>> >> or usenet headers, you
>> >> wouldn't ask such a silly question.
>>

>> >Wrong "if". �Correct is, "if it took you less time to study and

>> >compare my post headers than it does to type out these questions,..."
>
>And, of course, it takes a lot *more* time.
>
>> So you admit you could have answered your own question,
>
>There were two questions.
>
>> but didn't

>> even bother. �No surprise there.

>
>The surprise would have occurred if ANYONE wanted to waste the amount
>of time it takes to pore over headers,

Then don't bring it up.

>given your past behavior in
>sci.bio.paleontology.

<YAWN> You would have more time to reply in a timely way to recent
posts if you didn't waste so much time dragging out old posts. Your
posts start out stupid and just get moldy with age.

>You encountered me in an on-topic post in that newsgroup, and promptly
>whined about how you had neglected to put me in your killfile for that
>newsgroup.
>
>I'd ask you if you killfiled me for that newsgroup then and there, but
>you'd probably sneer at me for not taking the trouble to hack into
>your account to discover for myself whether I had been
>killfiled. :-)

Don't be silly. There are much better reasons for sneering at you.
Like this reply of yours.

>> >> >anyway, here she is replying directly to me.
>>
>> >> Can't slip anything past you.
>>
>> >> <snip remainder of useless post>
>>
>> >I'm glad you thought it was useless to repost your earlier comments in
>> >context.
>>
>> My earlier comments were already in context before you mangled them.

>> I restored them in context. �You mangled them again. �Your mangling of

>> my comments remains useless
>
>You restored them, period. You snipped all the context of that one
>paragraph you reposted.

That's another easily disproved falsehood. I snipped nothing from
that post. Anything missing you snipped out in your previous post.
And all you did in your follow-up post is reinsert what was already
there.

Anybody can look and see who snipped out what and when. I'm not sure
if you're too lazy or too stupid to check your own facts, but the net
effect is the same. I'll spoon-feed it to you, but you still have to
digest it yourself:

start here:
<nsprl8hhp1vqpc4cl...@4ax.com>

then go here:
<684a4fe9-1964-4842...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>

then go here:
<508ul8l8egigt40cb...@4ax.com>

then go here:
<0dcbf1e0-1aba-4a49...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>


You can find somebody else to burp you and change your diaper.

>You seem to dislike Usenet's greatest advantage over every other forum
>I've participated in: the fact that people interested in getting at
>the truth can insert comments exactly where they are most relevant.
>The few other forums that allow it use a clumsy big-indentation format
>which quickly narrows lines down to a few letters in width.
>
>Ron O is your kindred spirit in this: he rails against me when I do
>it, only he uses the loaded term "manipulating" for what I do to his
>prose.

Ron O is being charitable to describe what you do as "manipulating".
If you did that in public you would risk arrest for indecent behavior.

>> >This means it was useless for you to repost what you wrote
>> >earlier-- or would mean it if you weren't the quintessential "do as I
>> >say, not as I do" person.
>>
>> Actually this means you're a babbling idiot.
>
>Actually, you are behaving like a six year old smart alec in this last
>line of yours. Pee Wee Herman could take lessons from you.

I fart in your general direction. And you don't deserve even that
much effort. Now please go waste somebody else's time.

[pnyikos]

On Apr 4, 2:00�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
> >on Directed Panspermia (DP).
Picking up where I left off on Friday:

> >E3: Doesn't the probability of directed panspermia depend on what f_l
> >is?
>
> >REPLY: Yes, but the relation is a complicated one. For purposes of
> >comparison, the relevant definition of "life" is "something not much
> >less complicated than the simplest free-living autotrophic
> >prokaryotes". �So at least the concept is nailed down.


> Not really. Even granted the validity of the (non-S)WAGs on
> which it's based, there is zero evidence that any
> civilization would embark on such a program even if they
> could.

Do you really think you are addressing the issue of whether the
relevant concept of "life" is nailed down? That's what your "Not
really." seemed to promise.

> >On the minus side: if one defines f_l that way, its value is something
> >about which there is a tremendous amount of controversy, even if one
> >takes it to mean "life arising by homegrown abiogenesis." Most
> >definitions of "life" are very undemanding in comparison to the
> >complexity of even the simiplest prokaryotes.
>
> > Also there is a gigantic range of opinion on the size of f_i, even
> >when using that value of f_l and that assumption.
>
> There is a "gigantic range" of possibilities regarding every
> single term in the Drake Equation past f_p, and the
> "gigantic range" of opinions expand this
> range...well...gigantically.

On that, we are agreed. But this is a digression from the topic of
directed panspermia, thanks to the cancellation of the factors that
precede f_i in the original Drake equation, as explained in the REPLY
to E4.

> >The hypothesis of directed panspemia itself makes no assumption about
> >these probabilities. �However, the author of this FAQ, Peter Nyikos,
> >does believe that f_l � f_i is so small that only one civilization
> >arrives via home-planet abiogenesis in any one galaxy, on the
> >average.
>
> Peter, in the past you've stated that you believe the range
> of probability of DP is from 1 in 2 to 1 in 30.

Actually 1 in 3 to 1 in 30. But almost invariably, the purpose of
posting those probabilities up to now has been to counter the canard
that I dogmatically insist that directed panspermia is the source of
earth life.

In the threads I've devoted to the expansion of the Drake equation, my
emphasis was always on *reasoning* as to how easy or how difficult it
is to get from one stage in the evolution of life to the other.

In the first, I explicitly mentioned the Drake equation in the Subject
line, and people ignored the stated purpose of the thread, and tried
to worm information from me about what I think the odds are.

In the second thread, I purposely avoided mentioning the Drake
equation and asked people to merely *compare* the difficulties in
getting from one stage to the next--was the step from stage j to stage
k more or less difficult than the step from stage n to stage m, etc.

I got precious little of that, but at least people finally started
reasoning about what makes this or that step difficult.

> I've asked
> you to provide the calculations on which this probability is
> based. If these conjectures

I take it you are talking about the conjectured values of the factors
in:

E = d_1 � d_2 � f_i � f_c � P

and in the factorization of f_i into

e_1 � e_2 � e_3 � e_4 � e_5 � e_6

Is this correct?

> are the basis for that claim,
> please say so, so I'll know how to treat it.
>
> >E4. Are there other ways in which the relation is a complicated one?
>
> >REPLY: For one thing, the factor f_l itself needs to take into account
> >the possibility of directed panspermia (DP). �That is because of the
> >way the Drake equation was and is primarily intended: to estimate the
> >number of civilizations in the galaxy we can be expected to contact in
> >the foreseeable future.
>
> >Yet, taking DP into account is something that is seldom done in
> >articles on the Drake equation. �When it is taken into account, f_l
> >becomes peculiarly time-dependent, especially if the simplified
> >"homegrown abiogenesis" version leads to a very small number. �If it
> >does, than f_l itself can be expected to increase markedly once the
> >first technological civilization in the galaxy ascertains this and
> >starts undertaking a directed panspermia project.

>
> Let's be clear on this: DP is an *assumption*; there is
> *zero* evidence either for or against it.

As I said to Ray, who had nothing to say in rebuttal:

DP is a *hypothesis*, not an assumption. I draw no conclusions from
it.

And homegrown abiogenesis (as opposed to abiogenesis, period) is in
the same Casanova boat: there is *zero* evidence either for or
against it.

> >On the other hand, if abiogenesis is easy on a planet with earth-like
> >conditions, the increase can be expected to be small, for reasons
> >Crick and Orgel already spelled out: see the last quote from them in
> >the reply to A7, which also explains the reasoning in the first
> >paragraph.
>
> >So, in the sequel, I will use f_A to designate the fraction of
> >suitable planets on which life of the stated complexity appears via
> >abiogenesis, and f_l will be as defined originally, but taking DP into
> >account.
>
> >.
>
> >E5. What are the other factors alluded to in the reply to E1?
>
> >REPLY: There are two kinds. One kind extends the Drake equation.
>
> >d_1: the fraction of civilizations attaining to the level described in
> >f_c going on to send probes to enough other planetary systems to
> >ascertain whether life is commonplace in our galaxy, or that theirs is
> >a unique planet in that respect.
>
> >d_2: the fraction of civilizations as described above, undertaking a
> >massive directed panspermia project.
>
> >P = expected number of successful panspermia attempts by a race which
> >is attempting massive panspermia.
>
> Every single one of these is an assumption based on
> conjecture,

Wrong. Guesses about their actual values are the conjectures.

> as is every term in the Drake Equation beyond
> f_p. If you have any actual evidence regarding their
> likelihood please post it.

Do you have any actual evidence as to their unlikelihood? We have
just arrived at the stage of which f_c speaks, and you can't expect us
to progress to the d_1 stage any faster than we got to the f_c stage
from the f_i stage.

Actually I think we'll do it a lot faster, maybe even 1000 times as
fast. That still would give us several millennia to play around with.

[snip for focus]

>�And are you familiar with
> the acronym GIGO?

Sure, and the Garbage In of "getting from Urey-Miller organic
compounds to the first prokaryote may be as inevitable as quartz" can
be expected to lead to the Garbage Out of "Directed panspermia is
nonsense."

IIRC it is Carl Sagan that I am closely paraphrasing in the GI. I
have an astronomy book at home where I can check that, but I'm at the
university right now.

> >The other kind has to do with factoring f_i into various parts to make
> >it easier to analyze. �This was done one way in:
>
> >Subject: An expansion of the Drake equation
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7ce90fe201b06c7c

...and a cosmetically different way in the REPLY to E7 in the FAQ
draft, posted last week.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 10:50:32 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Apr 6, 2:18�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:23:42 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 5, 2:24�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:08:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> >I wonder whether
>> >> >your bootlicker, Ray Martinez
>>
>> >> Nice, Peter; you've entered personal attack mode even
>> >> earlier than usual. So it's your opinion that anyone who
>> >> agrees with a criticism of your assertions is a
>> >> "bootlicker"?
>>
>> >No, it's my assertion that anyone like Martinez, who acts as though he
>> >hates atheists and evolutionists, then turns around and praises them
>> >against people like myself and (worse yet) fellow creationists, is a
>> >bootlicker.
>>
>> This comment is very revealing, since it avoids addressing
>> the subject in favor of a personality attack.
>
>It is a direct answer to your question, in reply to a post of yours
>which had no other topic to address in it.

Ah! So if Ray were generally in agreement with my posts he
would *not* be a "bootlicker"? And there's no possibility
that he agrees so strongly with me on this particular
subject that he's even willing to swallow his natural
inclination to disagree with "evolutionists" and agree with
me; it can only be the result of his sycophancy? Interesting
world you live in...

<snip empty rhetoric>

>> >Do you agree that we are coelenterates?
>
>Ducking of question noted.

I didn't duck it; I ignored it as irrelevant. But since it's
so important to you I'll say no; AFAIK the line leading to
mammals split from that leading to coelenterates quite a
while ago. Note that as a non-biologist I could well be
mistaken, since I'm not knowledgeable regarding the
subtleties of taxonomic relationships in the detail
required, and coelenterates could be part of our direct
ancestry.

But the question is, why do you consider this to be
important to the subject of DP?

>> >Unless you do, or unless you deny that we are *descended* *from*
>> >coelenterates, you are implicitly agreeing with me that UC had the
>> >upper hand in that dispute.
>>
>> I ignored that "dispute"; sorry 'bout that. It's not all
>> about you, and I'm still waiting for you to refute what I
>> posted.

I should have added: My experience with UC is that he's
fixated on his interpretation of words to the detriment of
knowledge and understanding, and on his idea that there is
some sort of authority which controls the common definitions
of words; the "men are/aren't apes" argument was
characteristic of both. If the "coelenterates" discussion
was of this type I'm raptly uninterested in what he had to
say.

>You'll get counter-arguments to your arguments, and then we'll see
>what counter-counter arguments you come up with. The real fun might
>start soon after that.

Well, I'm waiting for the continuation of your reply to my
response, which you said you would post on Monday; i.e.,
today. Perhaps I'll see it tomorrow after you post it later
today.

But remember that the *basic* question, the one on which
evaluation of your contentions depends, is where you got the
data allowing you to assign even tentative values to the
terms of the DE past f_p, terms you apparently used to
derive values for your DP "probability" conclusions. Until
that information is presented this discussion is nothing
more than opinions about personal beliefs.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 11:14:01 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Well?

[pnyikos]

On Apr 8, 2:10�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 20:42:37 -0400, the following appeared

> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 11:04:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:05:58 -0400, the following appeared

> >>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:

>
> >>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 11:24:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:04:15 -0400, the following appeared

> >>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:

>
> >>>>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 00:11:53 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> >>>>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>

There was no such invocation. I simply said I don't mind being in
such distinguished company.

Of course, they weren't distinguished on account of their treatment of
it. But then, my claim to "distinguishment" comes from my 90 (and
counting) peer-reviewed research papers in mathematics, 16 doctoral or
master's students, and over 100 invitations to conferences and
colloquia, along with all the other mathematics-related work I have
done.

> >Even though I still have my doubts that Drake would approve of calling
> >his namesake equation a "guess"

Finally, you acknowledge a distinction (of a different sort than
above) between the equation and the conjectured values assigned to the
terms:

> Possibly, although IIRC even Drake said that the values
> assigned to the terms *were* guesses.

If he didn't, he sure was negligent. But I have a "brother-in-law by
marriage" who recently purchased a book written by Drake, so I can
find out from him for sure.

> >, I am more than happy to agree
> >unconditionally with everything else you wrote.
>
> Careful; Peter will call you a "bootlicker", his term for
> anyone who agrees with one who disagrees with him.

You are acting as though you hadn't read my rebuttal of that Gans/
Coffey/O'Shea-inspired canard of yours.

Do you *really* think the polemical crud you slapped on that rebuttal
actually addressed its contents?

FYI, jillery is just showing her solidarity with you, which was
established quite a while back, judging from something Martinez posted
last year.

Last week, she also showed her solidarity with Ron O. So far from
bootlicking, I think she was just using Ron O as a "useful idiot" in
her long-running vendetta against me.

But in your case, it is more a case of equals showing solidarity with
equals, IMO.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 8, 2:14嚙緘m, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:40:17 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos

[tit-for-tat snipped]

> >> My earlier comments were already in context before you mangled them.
> >> I restored them in context.

But you said "<snip restored>" which might lead someone to think I had
snipped everything.


嚙磐ou mangled them again. 嚙磐our mangling of
> >> my comments remains useless
>
> >You restored them, period. 嚙磐ou snipped all the context of that one
> >paragraph you reposted.
>
> That's another easily disproved falsehood. 嚙瘢 snipped nothing from
> that post.

My mistake. I should have checked to see which one of us had
originally snipped all the context.


> 嚙璀nything missing you snipped out in your previous post.

> And all you did in your follow-up post is reinsert what was already
> there.

...in context. Without the actual places where your text had
previously appeared, it would be very difficult for people to tell
what my subsequent comments were in reply to.

[snip]

> >You seem to dislike Usenet's greatest advantage over every other forum
> >I've participated in: the fact that people interested in getting at
> >the truth can insert comments exactly where they are most relevant.
> >The few other forums that allow it use a clumsy big-indentation format
> >which quickly narrows lines down to a few letters in width.
>
> >Ron O is your kindred spirit in this: he rails against me when I do
> >it, only he uses the loaded term "manipulating" for what I do to his
> >prose.
>
> Ron O is being charitable to describe what you do as "manipulating".

You left out the prefix "un".

> If you did that in public you would risk arrest for indecent behavior.

Interrupting people is hardly grounds for arresting them.

I sometimes wonder whether Ron O got to behave the way he routinely
does by delivering long tirades to his son(s?), with one allegation
after another, and slapping his son if he dared to interrupt with
cries of "That's not so!" etc. before Ron O got to the end of his
long list of allegations.

If so, what probably happened after a couple of years of this
treatment was his son(s?) quietly taking it on the chin for long
minutes, and then when Ron O finally finished, the target of the
tirade would rack his brains to recall the first allegation.

If he didn't repeat it word for word, Ron O would interrupt him with
"That's not what I said" and then demand that his son recall the EXACT
words.

After a couple of years of this treatment.... well, there's still a
lot of ground to cover before we get to the hate-crazed pathological
liar that Ron O has become, but you can probably figure out the rest
if you know anything about Ron O's *modus operandi* here in
talk.origins.

Now for a tough question: do you have any children? Did you treat
them that way?

I have four daughters, and I never treat them that way.

> >> >This means it was useless for you to repost what you wrote
> >> >earlier-- or would mean it if you weren't the quintessential "do as I
> >> >say, not as I do" person.
>
> >> Actually this means you're a babbling idiot.
>
> >Actually, you are behaving like a six year old smart alec in this last

> >line of yours. 嚙瞑ee Wee Herman could take lessons from you.

>
> I fart in your general direction.

Also in Harshman's general direction, by the looks of it. But he has
*vastly* more clout in this newsgroup than I have, so you may have
bitten off more than you can chew.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 5, 1:46�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 09:15:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 4, 6:24�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> On Apr 4, 11:00�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> > <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >> > >This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
> >> > >on Directed Panspermia (DP).
>

> >> > There are so many holes in this I'll take them one at a
> >> > time.
>
> >I'll be dealing with the deailed criticism later.
>
> >For now, here is this little snippet.

>
> >> > Let's be clear on this: DP is an *assumption*; there is
> >> > *zero* evidence either for or against it.
>

> >DP is a *hypothesis*, not an assumption. �I draw no conclusions from
> >it.
>

> But you do; the conclusion is in the conjecture.

That's a conjecture *about it*. You are free to disagree with that
cojecture.

> There is,
> as I stated, zero evidence either way.
>
> And hypotheses are testable.

I already addressed that in Section B; see the reply to B8.

> >And homegrown abiogenesis (as opposed to abiogenesis, period) is in
> >the same Casanova boat: there is �*zero* evidence either for or
> >against it.
>

> At one time there was no life on Earth. Now there is. It
> occurred somehow, and postulating an external source does
> not resolve the issue;

There is no postulating, and the DP hypothesis "resolves" the issue
exactly as much as the MEdi (Mother Earth did it) hypothesis--no more
and no less.

> in fact, it complicates it, since we
> have zero evidence that such a source exists, or how likely
> abiogenesis is on any particular planet, while we *do* have
> evidence that the precursors of life occur spontaneously
> even in interstellar space.
>
> <snip whining>

What you snipped was between Ray and me, and your use of "whining" is
a symptom of extreme intellectual inbreeding in this politically
charged newsgroup.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 5, 2:16�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:08:50 -0700 (PDT), the following

> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

Again I am pressed for time, so some of your deathless prose will have
to lie fallow until tomorrow.

> >On Apr 4, 2:00�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >> >This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
> >> >on Directed Panspermia (DP).
>

> >Short on time, I tackle the first half (roughly) and leave the rest
> >for Monday. �I've got a life to live outside Usenet. �I wonder whether
> >your bootlicker, Ray Martinez, �even has a job, or a family he has to
> >support and interact with a good part of every day.

>
> >> There are so many holes in this I'll take them one at a
> >> time.
>

> >> > � � �E. Expanding and extending the Drake equation
>
> >> >E1. How does one estimate the probability that earth life is the
> >> >result of directed panspermia?
>
> >> >REPLY: This is something everyone has to decide on for themselves.
> >> >Most are simply satisfied with the general belief that the probability
> >> >is extremely low. �But to get an informed opinion about the matter, it
> >> >is necessary to use reasoning and analysis.
>
> >> ....and data. And no data exists, something you admit below
> >> but seem to fail to take into account.
>
> >There is no data for homegrown abiogenesis, as opposed to abiogenesis
> >in general. �*Homegrown* abiogenesis, perhaps with an assist from
> >comets carrying organic molecules, is the only scientific alternative
> >to the directed panspermia hypothesis.
>
> Yes. And we have evidence for such,

And they are equally applicable to the home planet where the
panspermists are hypothesized to have arisen. Perhaps more so, because
the conditions on early earth need not have been optimal for
abiogenesis.

[snip denial about level playing field]


>
>
> >> >The issue can be analyzed into factors similar to those in the Drake
> >> >equation. For each factor, one has to use what very little (and often
> >> >very indirect) evidence is available to us. �This is also true of most
> >> >of the factors in the Drake equation.
>
> >> >.
>
> >> >E2. What is the Drake equation?
>
> >> >REPLY: It is an equation used for estimating the number of
> >> >technological civilizations in our galaxy. It is generally given as:
>
> >> >N = R* � f_p �� �n_e �� �f_l �� �f_i �� �f_c � L
>
> >> >Where,
>
> >> > � �N = The number of civilizations in The Milky Way Galaxy whose
> >> >electromagnetic emissions are detectable.
>
> >> > � �R* =The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of
> >> >intelligent life.
>
> >> Known, at least to some extent.
>
> >Fine.
>
> >> > � �f_p = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.
>
> >> Ditto.
>
> >To an utterly trivial extent compared to the first one.
>
> >> > � �n_e = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment
> >> >suitable for life.
>
> >> Nearly a complete unknown.
>
> >> > � �f_l = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually
> >> >appears.
>
> >> Based on a complete unknown.
>
> >Indeed. �See above about the level playing field where ourselves being
> >the result of homegrown abiogenesis is concerned.
>
> And see my response.

How do you like my counter-counter-counter argument above?
>
> >Also, see my second installment, where the above factor "magically"
> >disappears. �But jillery saw it coming, because she saw �Mark Isaak's
> >analysis on which this "magic" is based.

<crickets chirping>


> >> > � �f_i = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent
> >> >life emerges.
>
> >> Based on an unsupported conjecture,
>
> >Which conjecture would that be?

<crickets chirping>


> >> and derived from a
> >> (nearly; sample size of 1) complete unknown.
>
> >See my third installment, where f_i is broken down into 6 factors,
> >some of which have enormous amounts of potentially relevant data in
> >the scientific literature.
>
> You insist on continuing to calculate probabilities from
> complete unknowns and conjectures regarding the possible
> existence of alien civilizations

Au contraire, I haven't even begun to calculate them publicly. See my
reply to the second half of your first post, where I tell you just WHY
I have been talking about the odds I have posted in the past.

If you haven't read it yet, the answer may surprise you.

By the way, do YOU think we are the first intelligent beings in the
whole galaxy?

Remainder deleted, to be replied to tomorrow. Duty calls.

Peter Nyikos

[Paul J Gans]

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[snip]

>There was no such invocation. I simply said I don't mind being in
>such distinguished company.

>Of course, they weren't distinguished on account of their treatment of
>it. But then, my claim to "distinguishment" comes from my 90 (and
>counting) peer-reviewed research papers in mathematics, 16 doctoral or
>master's students, and over 100 invitations to conferences and
>colloquia, along with all the other mathematics-related work I have
>done.

And how much does your "distinguishmentness" tell you about
self-organizing chemical and biochemical systems?

[Roger Shrubber]

On Apr 9, 1:15�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Apr 5, 8:11�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:


> > If one is interested in computing a quantity that is the
> > product of other quantities (the Drake Equation is like
> > this), having even ONE factor whose value is unknown and
> > whose bounds are extremely large means that the result
> > is meaningless.

> Why don't you take off the scientist's cap that you wear so clumsily
> and put on your humanist's cap? �You might start by engaging your
> sense of wonder at the universe and asking yourself whether any of the
> stars you see at night have life-bearing planets circling around them.
>
> Atheist though you are, you might be able to grok �the deeper �message
> behind the famous line,
>
> "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
>
> If you can grok it, perhaps you can appreciate the efforts of us
> wonder-filled folk to reach for the stars, figuratively speaking, by
> pondering the individual factors in the Drake equation, even though we
> cannot grasp their numerical values at the present time.

Again, you use the term "atheist" in a disparaging manner.
You assert as a virtue optimism beyond the pragmatic.
Elsewhere, you have asserted that belief in an afterlife
is a virtue unto itself. Taken together, these present an
antagonism that I will observe you unleash with high
frequency toward positions that you must acknowledge
are eminently reasonable. Reflect if you will, that you are
projecting a very real intolerance.

It's all well and good to admire or aspire toward belief
if you find it holds its own virtue but that does not justify
this antagonism towards those who have adopted a
more pragmatic world view.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:35:51 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Apr 8, 2:14�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:40:17 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>[tit-for-tat snipped]

Then leave your tits out of your replies.

>> >> My earlier comments were already in context before you mangled them.
>> >> I restored them in context.
>
>But you said "<snip restored>" which might lead someone to think I had
>snipped everything.

Only those too lazy/stupid to check their facts would jump to such a
conclusion.


>> >>�You mangled them again. �Your mangling of my comments remains useless
>>
>> >You restored them, period. �You snipped all the context of that one
>> >paragraph you reposted.


<snip restored>


>>That's another easily disproved falsehood. I snipped nothing from
>>that post. Anything missing you snipped out in your previous post.

>>And all you did in your follow-up post is reinsert what was already
>>there.
>>

>>Anybody can look and see who snipped out what and when. I'm not sure
>>if you're too lazy or too stupid to check your own facts, but the net
>>effect is the same. I'll spoon-feed it to you, but you still have to
>>digest it yourself:
>>
>>start here:
>><nsprl8hhp1vqpc4cl...@4ax.com>
>>
>>then go here:
>><684a4fe9-1964-4842...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
>>
>>then go here:
>> <508ul8l8egigt40cb...@4ax.com>
>>
>>then go here:
>><0dcbf1e0-1aba-4a49...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
>>
>>
>>You can find somebody else to burp you and change your diaper.
>

>My mistake. I should have checked to see which one of us had
>originally snipped all the context.

Bad enough you prattle about things you can check for yourself. But
there's less than 24 hours between first and last post. That you could
have forgotten what you wrote in such a short period suggests you
suffer from serious dementia.

>...in context. Without the actual places where your text had
>previously appeared, it would be very difficult for people to tell
>what my subsequent comments were in reply to.
>
>[snip]
>
>
>> >You seem to dislike Usenet's greatest advantage over every other forum
>> >I've participated in: the fact that people interested in getting at
>> >the truth can insert comments exactly where they are most relevant.
>> >The few other forums that allow it use a clumsy big-indentation format
>> >which quickly narrows lines down to a few letters in width.
>>
>> >Ron O is your kindred spirit in this: he rails against me when I do
>> >it, only he uses the loaded term "manipulating" for what I do to his
>> >prose.
>>
>> Ron O is being charitable to describe what you do as "manipulating".
>
>You left out the prefix "un".

Your right. I should have written "what you undo". Thanks for
noticing.

>> If you did that in public you would risk arrest for indecent behavior.
>
>Interrupting people is hardly grounds for arresting them.

Manipulating yourself in public is grounds for arresting you. That
happens to people suffering dementia.


<snip more rockhead tits>

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:54:58 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Apr 5, 2:16�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:08:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>Again I am pressed for time, so some of your deathless prose will have
>to lie fallow until tomorrow.
>

>> >On Apr 4, 2:00�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >> >This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
>> >> >on Directed Panspermia (DP).
>>
>> >Short on time, I tackle the first half (roughly) and leave the rest

>> >for Monday. �I've got a life to live outside Usenet. �I wonder whether
>> >your bootlicker, Ray Martinez, �even has a job, or a family he has to

>> >support and interact with a good part of every day.
>>
>> >> There are so many holes in this I'll take them one at a
>> >> time.
>>

>> >> > � � �E. Expanding and extending the Drake equation

>>
>> >> >E1. How does one estimate the probability that earth life is the
>> >> >result of directed panspermia?
>>
>> >> >REPLY: This is something everyone has to decide on for themselves.
>> >> >Most are simply satisfied with the general belief that the probability

>> >> >is extremely low. �But to get an informed opinion about the matter, it

>> >> >is necessary to use reasoning and analysis.
>>
>> >> ....and data. And no data exists, something you admit below
>> >> but seem to fail to take into account.
>>
>> >There is no data for homegrown abiogenesis, as opposed to abiogenesis

>> >in general. �*Homegrown* abiogenesis, perhaps with an assist from

>> >comets carrying organic molecules, is the only scientific alternative
>> >to the directed panspermia hypothesis.
>>
>> Yes. And we have evidence for such,
>
>And they are equally applicable to the home planet where the
>panspermists are hypothesized to have arisen. Perhaps more so, because
>the conditions on early earth need not have been optimal for
>abiogenesis.

This is why it's a good idea to ignore from the Drake equation those
variables which apply to both DP and homegrown abiogenesis. However
how much (or how little) evidence there is for DP, it will always be
less than for homegrown abiogenesis. However improbable was
abiogenesis on Earth, it will always be at least as probable as
abiogenesis for planets in earlier star systems. Whatever SWAG you
make for abiogenesis, add to that all of the improbabilities unique to
DP, and the topic isn't worth even the noise you make over it.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kjq136$l8t$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> Not so much. You can get a tight beam at high effective power
> with little total power. You aim at likely planets (Drake
> had no idea of the number of planets out there -- we do and
> it is awesome) and hope that they are listening.
>
> We, of course, are listening at the wrong frequencies and might
> be missing laser signals totally.

You can get AFAIK a sufficiently tight beam at any frequency, just may
need a bigger antenna at radio frequencies. And it still requires aim
and selection of appropriate targets.

And yes without sufficiently sensitive receivers in space I don't
think we would detect laser signals or X-ray signals.

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

[jillery]

On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:29:04 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <kjq136$l8t$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Not so much. You can get a tight beam at high effective power
>> with little total power. You aim at likely planets (Drake
>> had no idea of the number of planets out there -- we do and
>> it is awesome) and hope that they are listening.
>>
>> We, of course, are listening at the wrong frequencies and might
>> be missing laser signals totally.
>
>You can get AFAIK a sufficiently tight beam at any frequency, just may
>need a bigger antenna at radio frequencies. And it still requires aim
>and selection of appropriate targets.
>
>And yes without sufficiently sensitive receivers in space I don't
>think we would detect laser signals or X-ray signals.

Then assume there is available a "sufficiently tight beam" of some
specific frequency. Which frequenc/y/ies? And which point(s) in
space, out of the entire sky, do you choose to transmit to? Remember,
you have to aim for not where you see something, but where it will be
when your signal gets there. And remember, the tighter the beam you
assume for distance, the harder it is to hit anything. And remember,
the more points/frequencies you choose, the less time you spend on
each point/frequency, until the chances of anyone out there hearing
you diminish to practical uselessness.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Apr 4, 2:00�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>> >This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
>> >on Directed Panspermia (DP).
>Picking up where I left off on Friday:
>
>> >E3: Doesn't the probability of directed panspermia depend on what f_l
>> >is?
>>
>> >REPLY: Yes, but the relation is a complicated one. For purposes of
>> >comparison, the relevant definition of "life" is "something not much
>> >less complicated than the simplest free-living autotrophic

>> >prokaryotes". �So at least the concept is nailed down.

>
>
>> Not really. Even granted the validity of the (non-S)WAGs on
>> which it's based, there is zero evidence that any
>> civilization would embark on such a program even if they
>> could.
>
>Do you really think you are addressing the issue of whether the
>relevant concept of "life" is nailed down? That's what your "Not
>really." seemed to promise.
>
>> >On the minus side: if one defines f_l that way, its value is something
>> >about which there is a tremendous amount of controversy, even if one
>> >takes it to mean "life arising by homegrown abiogenesis." Most
>> >definitions of "life" are very undemanding in comparison to the
>> >complexity of even the simiplest prokaryotes.
>>
>> > Also there is a gigantic range of opinion on the size of f_i, even
>> >when using that value of f_l and that assumption.
>>
>> There is a "gigantic range" of possibilities regarding every
>> single term in the Drake Equation past f_p, and the
>> "gigantic range" of opinions expand this
>> range...well...gigantically.
>
>On that, we are agreed. But this is a digression from the topic of
>directed panspermia, thanks to the cancellation of the factors that
>precede f_i in the original Drake equation, as explained in the REPLY
>to E4.
>
>> >The hypothesis of directed panspemia itself makes no assumption about

>> >these probabilities. �However, the author of this FAQ, Peter Nyikos,
>> >does believe that f_l � f_i is so small that only one civilization

>E = d_1 � d_2 � f_i � f_c � P

>
>and in the factorization of f_i into

>e_1 � e_2 � e_3 � e_4 � e_5 � e_6
>
>Is this correct?

Yep. Plus the fact that they're all based on values
(guesses) in the terms of the DE following f_p, which must
also be justified.

>> are the basis for that claim,
>> please say so, so I'll know how to treat it.
>>
>> >E4. Are there other ways in which the relation is a complicated one?
>>
>> >REPLY: For one thing, the factor f_l itself needs to take into account

>> >the possibility of directed panspermia (DP). �That is because of the

>> >way the Drake equation was and is primarily intended: to estimate the
>> >number of civilizations in the galaxy we can be expected to contact in
>> >the foreseeable future.
>>
>> >Yet, taking DP into account is something that is seldom done in

>> >articles on the Drake equation. �When it is taken into account, f_l

>> >becomes peculiarly time-dependent, especially if the simplified

>> >"homegrown abiogenesis" version leads to a very small number. �If it

>> >does, than f_l itself can be expected to increase markedly once the
>> >first technological civilization in the galaxy ascertains this and
>> >starts undertaking a directed panspermia project.
>>
>> Let's be clear on this: DP is an *assumption*; there is
>> *zero* evidence either for or against it.
>
>As I said to Ray, who had nothing to say in rebuttal:
>
>DP is a *hypothesis*, not an assumption. I draw no conclusions from
>it.

And again you are wrong. Hypotheses are testable, at least
in principle. Your conjecture is based on the conjectures
(guesses) in the DE and your followup DP equation.

>And homegrown abiogenesis (as opposed to abiogenesis, period) is in
>the same Casanova boat: there is *zero* evidence either for or
>against it.

You keep saying this, even though I've specifically stated
the evidence supporting local abiogenesis.

>> >On the other hand, if abiogenesis is easy on a planet with earth-like
>> >conditions, the increase can be expected to be small, for reasons
>> >Crick and Orgel already spelled out: see the last quote from them in
>> >the reply to A7, which also explains the reasoning in the first
>> >paragraph.
>>
>> >So, in the sequel, I will use f_A to designate the fraction of
>> >suitable planets on which life of the stated complexity appears via
>> >abiogenesis, and f_l will be as defined originally, but taking DP into
>> >account.
>>
>> >.
>>
>> >E5. What are the other factors alluded to in the reply to E1?
>>
>> >REPLY: There are two kinds. One kind extends the Drake equation.
>>
>> >d_1: the fraction of civilizations attaining to the level described in
>> >f_c going on to send probes to enough other planetary systems to
>> >ascertain whether life is commonplace in our galaxy, or that theirs is
>> >a unique planet in that respect.
>>
>> >d_2: the fraction of civilizations as described above, undertaking a
>> >massive directed panspermia project.
>>
>> >P = expected number of successful panspermia attempts by a race which
>> >is attempting massive panspermia.
>>
>> Every single one of these is an assumption based on
>> conjecture,
>
>Wrong. Guesses about their actual values are the conjectures.

Sorry. I assumed you'd understand that I meant that
assigning values, which I believe you've done, is
conjectural; the terms you've postulated are no more
conjectures than are the bare terms in the DE (although
claiming they're the *only* possible terms would indeed be
conjecture). It's when, in the absence of any sort of data
and with little to no expectation of being able to find any
(as is the case with the terms of the DE past f_p), that one
attempts to place values on those terms that they become
nothing but conjecture.

>> as is every term in the Drake Equation beyond
>> f_p. If you have any actual evidence regarding their
>> likelihood please post it.
>
>Do you have any actual evidence as to their unlikelihood?

No more than you do for their likelihood. But I'm not the
one attempting to assign values to unknowns and derive
probabilities from those values.

Get this straight: I don't reject the possibility of
panspermia, either directed or undirected (which I think is
far more likely, for the obvious reason). I *do* reject any
attempt to assign probabilities to variables for which no
data exists, other than as an exercise in logic. Fun, yes.
But ultimately of zero actual value.

> We have
>just arrived at the stage of which f_c speaks, and you can't expect us
>to progress to the d_1 stage any faster than we got to the f_c stage
>from the f_i stage.

I don't expect anything of the sort. I also don't expect
anyone who understands both science and math to claim hard
probabilities (even as wide as "1 in 3 to 1 in 30") in
advance of the data, something you seem to have no trouble
doing.

>Actually I think we'll do it a lot faster, maybe even 1000 times as
>fast. That still would give us several millennia to play around with.

Could be, but prognostication has little value in science,
except as the basis for experimentation to evaluate its
merits. And we currently have no way to perform such an
experiment, nor do I foresee the possibility of one using
current knowledge.

>[snip for focus]
>
>>�And are you familiar with

>> the acronym GIGO?
>
>Sure, and the Garbage In of "getting from Urey-Miller organic
>compounds to the first prokaryote may be as inevitable as quartz" can
>be expected to lead to the Garbage Out of "Directed panspermia is
>nonsense."

Again you seem to miss the point. No one is claiming that DP
is nonsense (at least I'm not), only that there is no basis
in current knowledge to accept it as likely or to generate
probabilities regarding it. AFAIK no one even tries to
generate probabilities regarding local abiogenesis, and
there is actual data (Urey-Miller and much following)
regarding how it might have occurred. And *none* of that
data relies on the putative actions of undemonstrated alien
cultures, but on known physical laws, the behavior of
chemicals in various environments and the expected (based
again on observations, not guesses) results of imperfect
replication on populations, whether of chemical compounds or
of living things.

>IIRC it is Carl Sagan that I am closely paraphrasing in the GI. I
>have an astronomy book at home where I can check that, but I'm at the
>university right now.

I'm sure Sagan never tried to assign probabilities to DP
other than as "what-ifs". And Sagan didn't confuse
conjecture with hypothesis.

>> >The other kind has to do with factoring f_i into various parts to make

>> >it easier to analyze. �This was done one way in:

>>
>> >Subject: An expansion of the Drake equation
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7ce90fe201b06c7c
>
>...and a cosmetically different way in the REPLY to E7 in the FAQ
>draft, posted last week.

???

[pnyikos]

On Apr 8, 8:50�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

As much as it told the people who first discussed the Drake equation.
They had to be pretty intelligent to discuss it on a higher level than
most people here, and my mathematical prowess is indicative of high
intelligence in the same general directions if nothing else.

Your intelligence, on the other hand, seems to be quite low,
considering how you confuse some very disparate things.

Example: confusing "I trapped him into making it obvious that he was a
troll" with "I was the first to decide that he was a troll".

You were so sure of your interpretation that you belittled me and
insulted me for claiming the latter, when in fact I was claiming the
former.

Have you been tested for dementia?

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

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <kjq136$l8t$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> Not so much. You can get a tight beam at high effective power
>> with little total power. You aim at likely planets (Drake
>> had no idea of the number of planets out there -- we do and
>> it is awesome) and hope that they are listening.
>>
>> We, of course, are listening at the wrong frequencies and might
>> be missing laser signals totally.

>You can get AFAIK a sufficiently tight beam at any frequency, just may
>need a bigger antenna at radio frequencies. And it still requires aim
>and selection of appropriate targets.

>And yes without sufficiently sensitive receivers in space I don't
>think we would detect laser signals or X-ray signals.

SETI went through a calculation involving "windows" open to
radio waves in earth's atmosphere. There are not all that
many. They listen at a subset of those frequencies because
they assume that the other life forms could do the same
calculation.

As a result we are missing all the modulated dark matter
streams aimed at us, leading to a galactic consensus that
there is no intelligend life on earth.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kjsos6$74u$7...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> This is an excellent point.
>
> And so far, except for some crude estimates, nobody has
> really figured the cost of such a project. It would,
> if all will forgive me, likely be astronomical.

And entities are not to be added arbitrarily. Seem like remote origin
of life requires the invention of another intelligent technological
species with a specific goal at least among some members.

We don't know of any species that has attained a level of technology
that much higher than Homer the sap and held it long enough to carry
out such a program. From what I know of Homer the only technological
species we know this seems unlikely as evolutionary pressures would
seem to push other technology using species into a similar development.

I admit that speculation on other technological species is
speculative, but then so are other technological species.

Meanwhile the quest for intelligent life in the universe goes on, as
there doesn't seem to be any here on Earth, perhaps a couple living
quietly on Maui?

[pnyikos]

On Apr 8, 9:35�pm, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 1:15�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On Apr 5, 8:11�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > If one is interested in computing a quantity that is the
> > > product of other quantities (the Drake Equation is like
> > > this), having even ONE factor whose value is unknown and
> > > whose bounds are extremely large means that the result
> > > is meaningless.
> > Why don't you take off the scientist's cap that you wear so clumsily
> > and put on your humanist's cap? �You might start by engaging your
> > sense of wonder at the universe and asking yourself whether any of the
> > stars you see at night have life-bearing planets circling around them.
>
> > Atheist though you are, you might be able to grok �the deeper �message
> > behind the famous line,
>
> > "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
>
> > If you can grok it, perhaps you can appreciate the efforts of us
> > wonder-filled folk to reach for the stars, figuratively speaking, by
> > pondering the individual factors in the Drake equation, even though we
> > cannot grasp their numerical values at the present time.
>
> Again, you use the term "atheist" in a disparaging manner.

I ask of you the same question a less wimpy atheist than yourself,
raven1, asked me:

"Has anyone ever suggested that you might be a
little thin-skinned to be participating on Usenet?"

There was no disparaging of atheism in my words, because of the
mention of "heaven," something many atheists laugh at.

In any event, I'd be insulting the intelligence of atheists if I were
to expect them to take the idea of a literal heaven seriously.

By the way, you might be interested in my answer to raven1's question.

_______________ excerpt____________________
Some have, in talk.origins, but they are barking up the wrong tree.
John Harshman and Paul Gans, arguably the two most influential
talk.origins regulars, give much more evidence of being thin-skinned
than I do.

Documentation on request.
===============end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/4666c4d0f1a57cae

"raven1" tried to bluff his way past the offer in that last sentence,
but he folded when i called his bluff.

I wonder whether anyone will take me up on that documentation offer
here.

> You assert as a virtue optimism beyond the pragmatic.

Narrow definition of "pragmatic" coupled with an excruciatingly
undemanding use of the word "optimism" noted.

I am quite optimistic that the human race will eventually be able to
estimate the Drake equation factor f_l with a reasonable degree of
certainty, and perhaps also f_i (or at least several of the 6 factors
into which I break it down) and L. Until then, it is fun, if nothing
else, to speculate on what those fractions might be.

So, I was basically inviting Gans to join me in a bit of fun.

Isn't that doing exactly the sort of thing you had in mind when you
suggested I was antisocial? Remember how you opportunistically said
it was "antisocial" to accuse people of lying?

> Elsewhere, you have asserted that belief in an afterlife
> is a virtue unto itself.

I don't BELIEVE there is one myself [did you see my first Good
Friday special?], so how could I have done that?

Rest of GIGO deleted

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 8, 9:47锟絧m, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:35:51 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>

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

> >On Apr 8, 2:14锟絧m, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:40:17 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >[tit-for-tat snipped]
>
> Then leave your tits out of your replies.

I will go on telling the truth no matter how painful it is to you.

For example, I am hereby recalling a case of extreme laziness by you.

You failed to check out whether my last two (thoroughly on-topic)
Doolittle-related posts included any "tit"s from me [they didn't]
while claiming that you "must have" ignored the last post because it
was loaded with them.

Even though I assured you that my last two posts to that thread were
utterly free of disparaging personal remarks, your laziness
persisted, and you killfiled me shortly thereafter.

Correction: you claimed much later, on the basis of ZERO evidence,
that I knew you had killfiled me. I knew you were boycotting me, but
I had never seen any claim by you that you had killfiled me.

There's several "tit"s right there. Will you retaliate with smart-
alecky 6 year old "tat"s? Or will you graduate to puberty-appropriate
tats, like you do below?

Or will you run away from this whole post?

[snip for focus]

> Bad enough you prattle about things you can check for yourself. 锟紹ut

> there's less than 24 hours between first and last post. That you could
> have forgotten what you wrote in such a short period

You mean, forgotten what I had snipped. Big difference.

[GIGO "tat" by Formerly Blinkered Porcupine deleted]

That nickname for you was a "tat," by the way.

> >> >You seem to dislike Usenet's greatest advantage over every other forum
> >> >I've participated in: the fact that people interested in getting at
> >> >the truth can insert comments exactly where they are most relevant.
> >> >The few other forums that allow it use a clumsy big-indentation format
> >> >which quickly narrows lines down to a few letters in width.
>
> >> >Ron O is your kindred spirit in this: he rails against me when I do
> >> >it, only he uses the loaded term "manipulating" for what I do to his
> >> >prose.

All I do is interrupt his long paragraphs, and snip some things while
often merely postponing the addressing of items I had snipped-- and
that is what I did to you and what set off this whole tit-for-tat
business.

Next you reveal how dirty-minded you are:

> >> Ron O is being charitable to describe what you do as "manipulating".
>
> >You left out the prefix "un".
>

> Your right. 锟絀 should have written "what you undo".

Only partly right. Ron O frequently uses "manipulate" to denote
interrupting his long tirades, cutting them into manageable chunks.

[tiny snip]

>
> >> If you did that in public you would risk arrest for indecent behavior.
>
> >Interrupting people is hardly grounds for arresting them.
>
> Manipulating yourself in public is grounds for arresting you.

Well, at least you've progressed from 6-year-old level smart-
aleckyness to 12-year-old level dirty-mindedness in just one post.

[Or should I say 8-year-old level dirty-mindedness? What with Planned
Parenthood pushing their brand of sex education, the whole progression
of childish attitudes may have shifted.]

>锟絋hat

> happens to people suffering dementia.

Continuation of earlier GIGO noted.

> <snip more rockhead tits>

They almost all had to do with Ron O behavior, only one with yours.
No wonder you have no inclination to issue lots of tats.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 8, 9:53�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:54:58 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

> >On Apr 5, 2:16�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:08:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >Again I am pressed for time, so some of your deathless prose will have
> >to lie fallow until tomorrow.
>

> >> >On Apr 4, 2:00�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >> >> >This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
> >> >> >on Directed Panspermia (DP).
>
> >> >Short on time, I tackle the first half (roughly) and leave the rest

> >> >for Monday. �I've got a life to live outside Usenet. �I wonder whether
> >> >your bootlicker, Ray Martinez, �even has a job, or a family he has to

> >> >support and interact with a good part of every day.
>
> >> >> There are so many holes in this I'll take them one at a
> >> >> time.
>

> >> >> > � � �E. Expanding and extending the Drake equation

>
> >> >> >E1. How does one estimate the probability that earth life is the
> >> >> >result of directed panspermia?
>
> >> >> >REPLY: This is something everyone has to decide on for themselves.
> >> >> >Most are simply satisfied with the general belief that the probability

> >> >> >is extremely low. �But to get an informed opinion about the matter, it

> >> >> >is necessary to use reasoning and analysis.
>
> >> >> ....and data. And no data exists, something you admit below
> >> >> but seem to fail to take into account.
>
> >> >There is no data for homegrown abiogenesis, as opposed to abiogenesis

> >> >in general. �*Homegrown* abiogenesis, perhaps with an assist from

> >> >comets carrying organic molecules, is the only scientific alternative
> >> >to the directed panspermia hypothesis.
>
> >> Yes. And we have evidence for such,
>
> >And they are equally applicable to the home planet where the
> >panspermists are hypothesized to have arisen. Perhaps more so, because
> >the conditions on early earth need not have been optimal for
> >abiogenesis.
>
> This is why it's a good idea to ignore from the Drake equation those

> variables which apply to both DP and homegrown abiogenesis. �However

> how much (or how little) evidence there is for DP, it will always be
> less than for homegrown abiogenesis.

Fallacious reasoning, ignoring the possibillity that E/(E+1) might be
quite close to 1:


[excerpt from reply to FAQ question E5:]

Let Ta be the number of planets at some point in time, in a galaxy
like ours, with a technological civilization like ours, that is due to
abiogenesis on the planet itself. Thus

Ta = R* � f_p � n_e � f_A � f_i � f_c

Let Td be the number planets in a galaxy like ours, with a
technological civilization like ours that is the product of directed
panspermia + evolution:

Td = Ta � d_1 � d_2 � f_i � f_c � P

The factor of Ta is due to the panspermists arising via abiogenesis on
their home planet. The others are there because of evolution following
the initial seeding producing the civilization, given the number P.

Let E = d_1 � d_2 � f_i � f_c � P

Now the probability of a technological civilization in a galaxy like
ours arising via directed panspermia is:

Td/(Td + Ta) = (Ta)(E)/[Ta + (Ta)(E)] =

= E/(E+1) because Ta cancels out.

[end of excerpt]

>�However improbable was

> abiogenesis on Earth, it will always be at least as probable as
> abiogenesis for planets in earlier star systems.

On the other hand, there is only one of Earth and perhaps billions of
earth-like planets in earlier star systems. It would be an
anthropomorphic fallacy to assume that the odds are still in favor of
Earth because "we are here."

It would even be an anthropomorphic fallacy to confine our calculation
of the odds to systems within, say 1000 light years of earth on the
grounds that the panspermists cannot be expected to send probes
further than that.

I realize that it probably takes an IQ somewhat over 100 to grasp why
this latter would be a fallacy. Paul Gans, for instance, was never
able to see it no matter how many angles I tried to explain it from.

>�Whatever SWAG you

> make for abiogenesis, add to that all of the improbabilities unique to
> DP, and the topic isn't worth even the noise you make over it.

As you can see above, your argument is GIGO.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 18:27:47 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

'Zackly

[pnyikos]

On Apr 9, 2:05�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

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

> >On Apr 4, 2:00�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >> >This is the first installment of the next section of a draft for a FAQ
> >> >on Directed Panspermia (DP).
> >Picking up where I left off on Friday:
>
> >> >E3: Doesn't the probability of directed panspermia depend on what f_l
> >> >is?
>
> >> >REPLY: Yes, but the relation is a complicated one. For purposes of
> >> >comparison, the relevant definition of "life" is "something not much
> >> >less complicated than the simplest free-living autotrophic

> >> >prokaryotes". �So at least the concept is nailed down.
>
> >> Not really. �Even granted the validity of the (non-S)WAGs on

> >> which it's based, there is zero evidence that any
> >> civilization would embark on such a program even if they
> >> could.
>
> >Do you really think you are addressing the issue of whether the

> >relevant concept of "life" is nailed down? �That's what your "Not
> >really." seemed to promise.

<crickets chirping>

[snip area of apparent agreement]

> >> >The hypothesis of directed panspemia itself makes no assumption about

> >> >these probabilities. �However, the author of this FAQ, Peter Nyikos,
> >> >does believe that f_l � f_i is so small that only one civilization

> >> >arrives via home-planet abiogenesis in any one galaxy, on the
> >> >average.
>
> >> Peter, in the past you've stated that you believe the range
> >> of probability of DP is from 1 in 2 to 1 in 30.
>

> >Actually 1 in 3 to 1 in 30. �But almost invariably, the purpose of

> >posting those probabilities up to now has been to counter the canard
> >that I dogmatically insist that directed panspermia is the source of
> >earth life.

I return to the theme of two threads, described below, in this post.

> >In the threads I've devoted to the expansion of the Drake equation, my
> >emphasis was always on *reasoning* as to how easy or how difficult it
> >is to get from one stage in the evolution of life to the other.
>
> >In the first, I explicitly mentioned the Drake equation in the Subject
> >line, and people ignored the stated purpose of the thread, and tried
> >to worm information from me about what I think the odds are.
>
> >In the second thread, I purposely avoided mentioning the Drake
> >equation and asked people to merely *compare* the difficulties in
> >getting from one stage to the next--was the step from stage j to stage
> >k more or less difficult than the step from stage n to stage m, etc.
>
> >I got precious little of that, but at least people finally started
> >reasoning about what makes this or that step difficult.

[small snip]

The following "take it" was on target, see immediately thereafter:

> >I take it you are talking about the conjectured values of the factors
> >in:
>

> >E = d_1 � d_2 � f_i � f_c � P
>
> >and in the factorization �of �f_i into
> >e_1 � e_2 � e_3 � e_4 �� e_5 � e_6

>
> >Is this correct?
>
> Yep. Plus the fact that they're all based on values
> (guesses) in the terms of the DE following f_p, which must
> also be justified.

To some extent, yes. L, for instance, should be on the order of a
million years or more--roughly the lifetime, up to now, of the one
intelligent species on this planet so far. And n_e needs to be more
than 0.1 on average for the odds to be reasonably calculated in favor
of directed panspermia, IMHO.

So now I take the second step I wanted people to take (but no one
took) in those other threads. I rank the factors of f_1 in order of
what I think is their size:

e_1 < e_2 < e_4 < e_3 < e_6 < e_5


Where e_j is the fraction of planets with organisms at Stage j going
on to evolve organisms at Stage j+1. The stages chosen in the above
posts are represented by the following organisms:

Stage 1: prokaryotes (bacteria, archae)

Stage 2: sexually reproducing eukaryotes

Stage 3: metazoans

Stage 4: lower chordates, mollusks, arthropods

Stage 5: primitive tetrapods

Stage 6: prosimians, *Saurornithoides*, raccoons

Stage 7: *Homo sapiens*

I give a high ranking to e_5 (going from Stage 5 to Stage 6) because
three different groups of tetrapods on earth have made it, and the
split between the mammals and *Saurornithoides* (also known as
Troodon) goes back more than halfway to the beginning of Stage 5.

Remainder snipped for focus, to be replied to later.