Life on Mars (maybe) and Newspapers
Londo Mollari
I really did not have time today to search newspapers, but I did get
to see the major Oklahoma City paper while on break. The _Daily_
_Oklahoman_ (often called "The Disappointment" in OK) did not mention
the possible discovery of life, though probally extinct, on Mars
on its front page. The only article is part of a column on page three.
(This was the Wed. paper, the possible discovery was announced on
Tuesday. There was plenty of time to include a front page article.)
I wonder what the coverage was like in other newspapers.
(You can bet that I will be checking the library, the web, and magazine
racks soon.)
--
"The wide world is all about you: you can fence
yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out"
- J.R.R. Tolkien
_The_Lord_of_Rings_
David Hines
In article <hummelDv...@netcom.com>,
Franklin Hummel <hum...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> THE NEW YORK TIMES, BOSTON GLOBE, and BOSTON HERALD all covered
>it on their front pages.
Ditto THE WASHINGTON POST.
> I cannot tell you how excited I was! And I got into work eager
>to talk with other people about it and, of course, found that with the
>exception of other SF fans, no one -cared- (dead microbes? a million
>years old?) *sigh*
Now the question is: will the discovery provide sufficient impetus for
us to get off our asses and into space - REAL space, not just low
earth orbit? The last time the U.S. gov't was *really* gung-ho
for space was when we had an honest-to-goodness goal ("Beat the
Russkies!"). Now there may be Alien Life - there are those who
think it's possible that there could be life on Mars *now,* buried
really really deep in the ground - so our Bubba-in-Chief may get
the idea that sending us to Mars is a good thing to do.
The cynic in me suspects that, even if this does motivate the gov't
to actually get up and go again, the end result will be the same
as the last time: all the resources and energy of our government
and people will be directed towards a manned mission - and once it's
done, and the press doesn't find men on Mars sexy anymore, that's it.
Other than *maybe* Space Station Alpha, we'll have no bases or colonies
on Luna, on Mars, or in space. In short, we won't be any different
than we are now - except we'll have faster computers, DVDs, a whole
bunch of Mars fines and Mars rocks to show for it, and a different
bozo in the White House. Oh, and I forgot the important thing: a whole
bunch of photo ops.
> The other thing I found of interest was the difference in
>reaction between Clinton's and Dole's reactions. Bill ("I want the Sci-Fi
>Channel") Clinton came out and announced a panel would be set up right
>away to deal with the implications of this discovery; you could tell he
>was personally excited. Bob Dole, when asked for his reactions, made a
>weak joke about having a convention delegate from Mars.
What do you bet that Clinton turns this into a campaign issue? It
makes him look forward-thinking and quick to act, and, more importantly,
makes Dole look out of touch. Neither of them will have any influence
of substance on the issue, but Clinton has more style than Dole -
and that's enough, in the MTV age.
David Hines
dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu
Londo Mollari
hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) wrote:
> (Londo Mollari) writes:
> >I really did not have time today to search newspapers, but I did get
> >to see the major Oklahoma City paper while on break. The _Daily_
> >_Oklahoman_ (often called "The Disappointment" in OK) did not mention
> >the possible discovery of life, though probally extinct, on Mars
> >on its front page. The only article is part of a column on page three.
> >(This was the Wed. paper, the possible discovery was announced on
> >Tuesday. There was plenty of time to include a front page article.)
> >I wonder what the coverage was like in other newspapers.
> >(You can bet that I will be checking the library, the web, and magazine
> >racks soon.)
>
> THE NEW YORK TIMES, BOSTON GLOBE, and BOSTON HERALD all covered
> it on their front pages. Most (but not all) of the local Boston TV
> stations carried it as their lead stories on their early evening
> newscasts. I was -thrilled- to see CNN and Headline News carry it as
> their lead story for most of Wednesday.
Well I am off today so I probally check the library and see if the Dallas
and Tulsa papers are more advanced than Gaylord's rag (OKC paper -- and
just in case, Gaylord is the name of the local zillionare owner of that
paper who makes Gharlane look like a liberal and not some slur).
> I cannot tell you how excited I was! And I got into work eager
> to talk with other people about it and, of course, found that with the
> exception of other SF fans, no one -cared- (dead microbes? a million
> years old?) *sigh*
>
> *double sigh*
Frankly Frank, it does not surprise me one bit. It would not surprise
me if similar reactions came from an alien radio signals.
And just as an aside, since "The Star" and other such stories have
been brought up here (r.a.s.tv) recently. An intellegent civilization may
not have died. But it _appears_ to be a case now of a planet which
life -- all of it -- has died. Now that got to have some philosophical
implications to say the least.
> The other thing I found of interest was the difference in
> reaction between Clinton's and Dole's reactions. Bill ("I want the Sci-Fi
> Channel") Clinton came out and announced a panel would be set up right
> away to deal with the implications of this discovery; you could tell he
> was personally excited. Bob Dole, when asked for his reactions, made a
> weak joke about having a convention delegate from Mars.
Though admittedly Clinton has the tendency to set up panels for everything,
I do like his reaction much better than Doles. Dole just got a couple
demerits in my decision process.
William McBrine
Londo Mollari (lo...@uoknor.edu) wrote:
: I wonder what the coverage was like in other newspapers.
Top of page 1 in The Washington Post.
--
William McBrine | http://www.clark.net/pub/wmcbrine/html/
wmcb...@clark.net | PyrE! Make them tell you what it is!
Clay Blankenship
In article <londo-0808960054220001@news>,
Londo Mollari <lo...@uoknor.edu> wrote:
>I really did not have time today to search newspapers, but I did get
>to see the major Oklahoma City paper while on break. The _Daily_
>_Oklahoman_ (often called "The Disappointment" in OK) did not mention
>the possible discovery of life, though probally extinct, on Mars
>on its front page. The only article is part of a column on page three.
>(This was the Wed. paper, the possible discovery was announced on
>Tuesday. There was plenty of time to include a front page article.)
>
It made the headline of the Houston Chronicle. Not surprising,
considering that Johnson Space Center was involved. I don't
remember the headline. Today's it made the second story, with
"Mars rock: a migration for the ages."
Clay
--
Clay B. Blankenship Texas A&M Dept. of Meteorology
cl...@tamu.edu URL "http://http.tamu.edu:8000/~clay"
Andrea Lynn Leistra
>I really did not have time today to search newspapers, but I did get
>to see the major Oklahoma City paper while on break. The _Daily_
>_Oklahoman_ (often called "The Disappointment" in OK) did not mention
>the possible discovery of life, though probally extinct, on Mars
>on its front page. The only article is part of a column on page three.
>I wonder what the coverage was like in other newspapers.
The San Jose Mercury News had a front page article, with a large color
picture of Mars, and the headline "Signs of Life on Mars"; "signs of" was
in print about half the size of "Life on Mars". About half of the front
page was devoted to the story, with a continuation of the article further
back.
The story also made the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle, but
with no picture and a significantly smaller headline size.
--
Andrea Leistra http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~aleistra
-----
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Franklin Hummel
In article <londo-0808960054220001@news> lo...@uoknor.edu
>I really did not have time today to search newspapers, but I did get
>to see the major Oklahoma City paper while on break. The _Daily_
>_Oklahoman_ (often called "The Disappointment" in OK) did not mention
>the possible discovery of life, though probally extinct, on Mars
>on its front page. The only article is part of a column on page three.
>Tuesday. There was plenty of time to include a front page article.)
>racks soon.)
THE NEW YORK TIMES, BOSTON GLOBE, and BOSTON HERALD all covered
it on their front pages. Most (but not all) of the local Boston TV
stations carried it as their lead stories on their early evening
newscasts. I was -thrilled- to see CNN and Headline News carry it as
their lead story for most of Wednesday.
to talk with other people about it and, of course, found that with the
exception of other SF fans, no one -cared- (dead microbes? a million
years old?) *sigh*
*double sigh*
reaction between Clinton's and Dole's reactions. Bill ("I want the Sci-Fi
Channel") Clinton came out and announced a panel would be set up right
away to deal with the implications of this discovery; you could tell he
was personally excited. Bob Dole, when asked for his reactions, made a
weak joke about having a convention delegate from Mars.
--
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
* NecronomiCon, 3rd Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
August 15-17, 1997 - Providence, Rhode Island
For info: http://www.oneworld.net/sf/companies/necropress/necronomicon.html
Louis Sivo
Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <londo-0808960054220001@news> lo...@uoknor.edu
: >I really did not have time today to search newspapers, but I did get
: >to see the major Oklahoma City paper while on break. The _Daily_
: >_Oklahoman_ (often called "The Disappointment" in OK) did not mention
: >the possible discovery of life, though probally extinct, on Mars
: >on its front page. The only article is part of a column on page three.
: >(This was the Wed. paper, the possible discovery was announced on
: >Tuesday. There was plenty of time to include a front page article.)
: >I wonder what the coverage was like in other newspapers.
: >(You can bet that I will be checking the library, the web, and magazine
: >racks soon.)
:
:
: THE NEW YORK TIMES, BOSTON GLOBE, and BOSTON HERALD all covered
: it on their front pages. Most (but not all) of the local Boston TV
: stations carried it as their lead stories on their early evening
: newscasts. I was -thrilled- to see CNN and Headline News carry it as
: their lead story for most of Wednesday.
The San Jose Mercury News also covered the story on their front page.
As an aside, I found I got the best, most up to date information from the
internet versus the newspaper or broadcast news.
: I cannot tell you how excited I was! And I got into work eager
: to talk with other people about it and, of course, found that with the
: exception of other SF fans, no one -cared- (dead microbes? a million
: years old?) *sigh*
:
: *double sigh*
Me too. God it was depressing. If this turns out to be true, it will be one
of the highlights of mankind's history. But from the reaction I see, not too
many mainstream people (here at least) care.
: The other thing I found of interest was the difference in
: reaction between Clinton's and Dole's reactions. Bill ("I want the Sci-Fi
: Channel") Clinton came out and announced a panel would be set up right
: away to deal with the implications of this discovery; you could tell he
: was personally excited. Bob Dole, when asked for his reactions, made a
: weak joke about having a convention delegate from Mars.
Yea, so much for Dole being forward thinking. Oh well, another reason for
me not to vote for him.
--
Louis Sivo
lou...@nafohq.hp.com
David DeRubeis
Londo Mollari wrote:
>
> I wonder what the coverage was like in other newspapers.
> (You can bet that I will be checking the library, the web, and magazine
> racks soon.)
>
It's been a front page story in the Houston Chronicle for 2 days in a row. Of course,
this *is* Houston, where we have a vested interest in spce exploration.
Londo Mollari
cl...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Clay Blankenship ) wrote:
> In article <londo-0808960054220001@news>,
> Londo Mollari <lo...@uoknor.edu> wrote:
> >I really did not have time today to search newspapers, but I did get
> >to see the major Oklahoma City paper while on break. The _Daily_
> >_Oklahoman_ (often called "The Disappointment" in OK) did not mention
> >the possible discovery of life, though probally extinct, on Mars
> >on its front page. The only article is part of a column on page three.
> >(This was the Wed. paper, the possible discovery was announced on
> >Tuesday. There was plenty of time to include a front page article.)
> >
> >I wonder what the coverage was like in other newspapers.
>
> It made the headline of the Houston Chronicle. Not surprising,
> considering that Johnson Space Center was involved. I don't
> remember the headline. Today's it made the second story, with
> "Mars rock: a migration for the ages."
I should mention that while possible discovery was a tiny bit on page
three, the OKC paper had a front page article on the next day. But
I guess that OKC paper was penny pinching by not changing the headline
and delayed rather given quick coverage of a story that in the end more
important Shannon Miller's parade. Nothing against Miller's great
achievement, but in a hundred years what will be remembered? Same for
_USA_Today_. On their front page the AOL crash was #1 and Mars was #2.
In the end, the AOL story is nothing more than shit happens while the
Mars story could very well be one of the great discoveries of mankind.
Robert Holland
Louis Sivo wrote:
>
> Franklin Hummel (hum...@netcom.com) wrote:
> : In article <londo-0808960054220001@news> lo...@uoknor.edu
> : (Londo Mollari) writes:
> : >to see the major Oklahoma City paper while on break. The _Daily_
> : >_Oklahoman_ (often called "The Disappointment" in OK) did not mention
> : >the possible discovery of life, though probally extinct, on Mars
> : >on its front page. The only article is part of a column on page three.
> : >(This was the Wed. paper, the possible discovery was announced on
> : >Tuesday. There was plenty of time to include a front page article.)
> : >I wonder what the coverage was like in other newspapers.
> : >racks soon.)
> :
> :
> : THE NEW YORK TIMES, BOSTON GLOBE, and BOSTON HERALD all covered
> : it on their front pages. Most (but not all) of the local Boston TV
> : stations carried it as their lead stories on their early evening
> : newscasts. I was -thrilled- to see CNN and Headline News carry it as
> : their lead story for most of Wednesday.
>
> The San Jose Mercury News also covered the story on their front page.
>
> As an aside, I found I got the best, most up to date information from the
> internet versus the newspaper or broadcast news.
>
> : I cannot tell you how excited I was! And I got into work eager
> : to talk with other people about it and, of course, found that with the
> : exception of other SF fans, no one -cared- (dead microbes? a million
> : years old?) *sigh*
> :
> : *double sigh*
>
> Me too. God it was depressing. If this turns out to be true, it will be one
> of the highlights of mankind's history. But from the reaction I see, not too
> many mainstream people (here at least) care.
Maybe these people assume there is life on other planets? The odds are
in
its favor. This news is rather ho-hum, a curiosity.
I first read the article in USA Today, then hit the web for more info.
The LA Times site has by far the best coverage online, and includes the
links to the pertinent NASA sites. Just how life could form inside
igneous rock is the real mystery here.
The timing sure coincides nicely with the Mars shots planned to lift off
in November 1996 and July 1997.
--RH
David E Romm
In article <DvtMJ...@midway.uchicago.edu>, dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu
(David Hines) wrote:
> > The other thing I found of interest was the difference in
> >reaction between Clinton's and Dole's reactions. Bill ("I want the Sci-Fi
> >Channel") Clinton came out and announced a panel would be set up right
> >away to deal with the implications of this discovery; you could tell he
> >was personally excited. Bob Dole, when asked for his reactions, made a
> >weak joke about having a convention delegate from Mars.
>
> What do you bet that Clinton turns this into a campaign issue? It
> makes him look forward-thinking and quick to act, and, more importantly,
> makes Dole look out of touch.
This is true, whether there's life on Mars or not. Clinton is far more
likely to restore funding for the sciences than any Republican. It's nice
that this is happening in an election year, to highlight the differences
in the parties.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Every work of imagination widens the frontiers of reality."
-- S. Fowler Wright, The Throne of Saturn
Londo Mollari
wi...@netcom.com (Wim Lewis) wrote:
> Londo Mollari <lo...@uoknor.edu> wrote:
> >I wonder what the coverage was like in other newspapers.
>
> Both of Seattle's major dailies had it on the front page, above the fold.
> The major competition was info on the Flight 800 wreckage recovery efforts.
>
> Of course, I, too, turned to the net next for detailed information...
I did the nets too. However what I am really waiting for is to
get my grubby little hands on the August 16 (if I recall correctly)
issue of _Science_. I am thinking of actually buying it rather than
my usual practice of doing it in the library only.
> (BTW, Londo, your newsreader or something is misconfigured --- check
> your Message-IDs.)
Thanks. I never noticed since it did not effect my newsreader's
performance. Basically my news server was set to the default
"news" rather than the full "news.uoknor.edu" and the News Watcher
put "...@news" rather than "...@news.uoknor.edu" as it should have.
I will find out as soon as this post appears if it is ironed out.
--
"Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon.
I am the first man to piss his pants on the moon."
- Buzz Aldrin,
Second Man on the Moon
Bruce Baugh
> I cannot tell you how excited I was! And I got into work eager
>to talk with other people about it and, of course, found that with the
>exception of other SF fans, no one -cared- (dead microbes? a million
>years old?) *sigh*
I, on the other hand, had non-sf-loving friends calling me up to ask
questions. (I'm one of the resident space junkies for my social circle.)
They were curious, in many cases fascinated, and wanted to get more
info.
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@kenosis.com <*> http://www.kenosis.com/bruce
See my Web pages for...
Daedalus Entertainment, makers of Feng Shui and Shadowfist
Christlib, the mailing list of Christian & libertarian ideas
New sf by S.M. Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $50/hr, min $100
Colin Campbell
It was the headline story in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Wim Lewis
In article <londo-0808960054220001@news>,
Both of Seattle's major dailies had it on the front page, above the fold.
The major competition was info on the Flight 800 wreckage recovery efforts.
Of course, I, too, turned to the net next for detailed information...
(BTW, Londo, your newsreader or something is misconfigured --- check
your Message-IDs.)
--
William "Wim" Lewis * wi...@netcom.com * Seattle, WA, USA
As you lay down life's highways, remember to stop and plant the roses.
PGP 0x27F772C1: 0C 0D 10 D5 FC 73 D1 35 26 46 42 9E DC 6E 0A 88
Celia Malm
lo...@uoknor.edu (Londo Mollari) wrote:
>I really did not have time today to search newspapers, but I did get
>to see the major Oklahoma City paper while on break. The _Daily_
>_Oklahoman_ (often called "The Disappointment" in OK) did not mention
>the possible discovery of life, though probally extinct, on Mars
>on its front page. The only article is part of a column on page three.
>(This was the Wed. paper, the possible discovery was announced on
>Tuesday. There was plenty of time to include a front page article.)
>I wonder what the coverage was like in other newspapers.
>(You can bet that I will be checking the library, the web, and magazine
>racks soon.)
<The Topeka Capital-Journal> (just to the north of you) had a story,
with a rather impressive picture, at the bottom of page one. It was a
fairly long story, continued on page 2. Remarkably intelligent and
articulate for a media report of a science event, too.
Cee
------------------------------------------------
"If I must be this...this thing they have made of me,
I shall at least give it my voice and my heart."
Walker Boh
Michael Powell
lo...@uoknor.edu (Londo Mollari) wrote:
>
>I wonder what the coverage was like in other newspapers.
>(You can bet that I will be checking the library, the web, and magazine
>racks soon.)
>
Front Page of the Baltimore Sun
After August 6, 1996 it is no longer "Are we alone?"
Now it is: "Why haven't we heard from them yet?"
Dianne Hackborn
Hark! The herald lo...@uoknor.edu (Londo Mollari) posts:
| I did the nets too. However what I am really waiting for is to
| get my grubby little hands on the August 16 (if I recall correctly)
| issue of _Science_. I am thinking of actually buying it rather than
| my usual practice of doing it in the library only.
<URL:http://www.aaas.org/science/mars/prerelease.html>
:)
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
__ Dianne Kyra Hackborn | "The person who stands up and says, ``This is
\/ Oregon State Univ. | stupid,'' either is asked to `behave' or, worse,
hac...@cs.orst.edu | is greeted with a cheerful ``Yes, we know! Isn't
CS Graduate Submissive | it terrific!''" -- Frank Zappa
<URL:http://www.cs.orst.edu/~hackbod/>
Steve Brinich
Franklin Hummel wrote:
> The other thing I found of interest was the difference in reaction
> between Clinton's and Dole's reactions. Bill ("I want the Sci-Fi
> Channel") Clinton came out and announced a panel would be set up right
> away to deal with the implications of this discovery; you could tell
> he was personally excited. Bob Dole, when asked for his reactions,
> made a weak joke about having a convention delegate from Mars.
I heard a joke that scientists had discovered chemicals in the rock
suggesting that there was once a spark of life in Bob Dole. ;-)
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
Invid fan
> The other thing I found of interest was the difference in
> reaction between Clinton's and Dole's reactions. Bill ("I want the Sci-Fi
> Channel") Clinton came out and announced a panel would be set up right
> away to deal with the implications of this discovery; you could tell he
> was personally excited. Bob Dole, when asked for his reactions, made a
> weak joke about having a convention delegate from Mars.
>
Well, when you consider the odds of Dole being around when a manned
mission is mounted to Mars, or even when the next round of probes arrives,
you can see his point :-)
--
"Say, Rose? Do you believe in Magic?" ! Chris Mack
"Not really, no. But that's NOT what you're asking me." ! 'Invid fan'
"It's not?" !
"Nope. What you're asking me is, do I believe in weird !
shit? And the answer is yes. Of course I do. I'd be !
crazy not to. I've had a weird shit life." _______!
- Rose and Carla, THE SANDMAN: THE KINDLY ONES ! In...@localnet.com
Rocky Persaud
lo...@uoknor.edu (Londo Mollari) wrote:
>hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) wrote:
>> I cannot tell you how excited I was! And I got into work eager
>> to talk with other people about it and, of course, found that with the
>> exception of other SF fans, no one -cared- (dead microbes? a million
>> years old?) *sigh*
>>
>
>Frankly Frank, it does not surprise me one bit. It would not surprise
>me if similar reactions came from an alien radio signals.
It's a cultural thing. I'm sure back in the age of Darwin and Huxley, when
rich and poor alike were interested in Science, to the point where it
was a national pasttime in the U.K., they would have loved it. But not
our society, except for us SF types. For most people science is far removed,
because it takes a lot of money and few ever experience it first hand.
So most people don't know how to relate to something like this, because
their imaginations were never engaged to see science as a Good Thing.
Everybody has seen SciFi on TV or the movies, but this rarely has anything
to do with science. Or as most often is the case, science is portrayed
as a Frankensteinian BAD THING.
Come on, hands up, who else thought about "The Andromeda Strain" when
they heard of this?
Rocky
fri...@fia.net
> In article <hummelDv...@netcom.com>,
> Franklin Hummel <hum...@netcom.com> wrote:
> The cynic in me suspects that, even if this does motivate the gov't
> to actually get up and go again, the end result will be the same
> as the last time: all the resources and energy of our government
> and people will be directed towards a manned mission - and once it's
> done, and the press doesn't find men on Mars sexy anymore, that's it.
Jeez, the cynic in me suspects that the "big news" is a calculated PR move
to get NASA funding. My understanding was that we have long known that
certain rocks from space had organic-like substance. Further puzzling to
me is how a piece of Mars gets up into space. What am I missing?
Rolling in ignorance I'm sure...
Kirt <fri...@fia.net>
StuShank
In article <Dvw0D...@utcc.utoronto.ca>, Rocky Persaud
<rocky....@utoronto.ca> writes:
>So most people don't know how to relate to something like this, because
>their imaginations were never engaged to see science as a Good Thing.
>Everybody has seen SciFi on TV or the movies, but this rarely has
anything
>to do with science. Or as most often is the case, science is portrayed
>as a Frankensteinian BAD THING.
>
>Come on, hands up, who else thought about "The Andromeda Strain" when
>they heard of this?
Didn't think of Andromeda strain in particular, but I did think of _The
War of the Worlds_ and of the Spanish Conquest of Latin America. If the
biology is sufficently different then I doubt there is much risk. OTOH if
life in the solar system has a common origin, which is possible, then
handling living Martian microbes might be a tad risky. This is especially
true if they find earth's biosphere more to their taste than their present
rather arid enviroment, and start a population explosion. They could
become huge pests or worse under those conditions.
I personally have little fear of fossilized microbes 4 billion years old.
Stu
StuS...@aol.com
**Exit kitchen tyrant pursued by pages unclad and maids in a state of
nature, leaving our hero beset by an ogre and two -- or is it three --
ogresses.** --- Fritz Leiber
Franklin Hummel
In article <frisbee-0908...@news.fia.net> fri...@fia.net writes:
>
>Jeez, the cynic in me suspects that the "big news" is a calculated PR move
>to get NASA funding. My understanding was that we have long known that
>certain rocks from space had organic-like substance. Further puzzling to
>me is how a piece of Mars gets up into space. What am I missing?
comment that when I got to work, no one -cared- about the Martian
discovery.
I don't know which newsgroup "Frisbee" posted this from, but
regardless it was one of three SF newsgroups and according to the date on
it was posted several days after the announcement. This person is likely to
some degree an SF fan, yet you get the stupid (and yes, it IS stupid) claim
that this is some PR move and the guy doesn't even know "how a piece of
Mars gets into space".
Last first: "how a piece of Mars gets into space" was explained
many, many times in the press coverage I saw, both in the written and TV
press. I am not going to bother to explain it here, because I want
Frisbee to have to find out for himself, since he did not bother to do so
before posting. Here is someone who seems to be a SF fan, faced with what
could be one of the greatest discoveries in human history -- and yet they
did not even bother to listen to the news enough to learn "how a pience
of Mars gets into space". Gees, this is -sad-.
But the thing with "NASA PR" has got to be the dumbest thing I
have heard in a long time. Again, it shows that folks (and Frisbee isn't
the only one who has said this) didn't bother in the slightest to LEARN
anything about what actually happened and how. He did not bother
finding out the examination had been going on for a long time by a bunch
of different scientists from around the world. (And what about the
stupidity of the idea that all these scientists agreed to take part in
a fraud -- and have their reputations ruined when other scientists
examine the evidence -- so NASA could get funding? Duh.)
>Rolling in ignorance I'm sure...
effort to LEARN the details, to learn the evidence, the pros and cons,
the history, before you post again? You can find it in the newspapers; I
am sure it will be in a lot of the newsmagazines. It is here on Usenet
and on the Web. Then maybe you will stop rolling in ignorance.
By the way, I am all for reasonable, scientific doubting and
examination of this discover. As others have said, that is what science
is about. But this does not mean that every stupid question by every
Usenet poster needs to be explained -- when the explanations have already
been given in the media and are available elsewhere -- if these folks
would just make the -effort- to go out and LEARN.
Derek Bell
Rocky Persaud <rocky....@utoronto.ca> writes:
>Come on, hands up, who else thought about "The Andromeda Strain" when
>they heard of this?
I admit that the arrival of apparent microbes did - though if they run
amok, I'll be impressed - undead Martian microbes!!! :-)
I don't know if it was coincindence or a last minute change of plan,
but BBC showed _The Andromeda Strain_ a few days ago.
Derek
--
Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html
"Donuts - is there _anything_ they can't do?" - Homer Simpson
Leonard Erickson
fri...@fia.net writes:
> Further puzzling to
> me is how a piece of Mars gets up into space. What am I missing?
Secondary meteorites.
When a *big* meteor hits, it throws up a lot of rock from the impact
site. On the moon it's even possible to spot the craters caused by the
secondaries coming back down (for some craters).
A big enough impact on a smaller body (like the moon or mars) can
boost the secondaries past escape velocity.
For instance, the type of meteorites known as "tektites" are
secondaries thrown up by lunar impacts that got intercepted by the earth.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
sha...@krypton.rain.com <--preferred
leo...@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort
Todd Adamson
hum...@netcom.com (Franklin Hummel) wrote:
>
> THE NEW YORK TIMES, BOSTON GLOBE, and BOSTON HERALD all covered
>it on their front pages. Most (but not all) of the local Boston TV
>stations carried it as their lead stories on their early evening
>newscasts. I was -thrilled- to see CNN and Headline News carry it as
>their lead story for most of Wednesday.
>
> I cannot tell you how excited I was! And I got into work eager
>to talk with other people about it and, of course, found that with the
>exception of other SF fans, no one -cared- (dead microbes? a million
>years old?) *sigh*
>
> *double sigh*
>
Of course, we SF fans know a bit more about science and how it works.
A far more likely reason why no one seems to care, is that we have
been inundated with stories of UFOs, alien kidnapping and government
coverups. Perhaps, the average person already assumes that there is
life out there and that a scientific debate over the possibility that
these fossils may be remnents of microbes, isn't that earthshattering
because they don't consider the scientific method to be particularly
important when it comes to assertaining truth. Compare the news about
life on Mars with the debate over the recent alien autopsy TV show and
you come away with the rather disturbing thought that people put more
reliance on psuedoscience. It's rather depressing, but most people
I've talked to about this, have no understanding of how science works.
Todd Adamson - tod...@ix.netcom.com
Man is ignorant of the nature of his own being and powers,
even his idea of his limitations is based on experience of the
past. There is therefore no reason to assign theoretical
limits to what he may be, or what he may do.
- Aleister Crowley
Steve Charlton
In article <londo-0808960054220001@news>, Londo Mollari
>I wonder what the coverage was like in other newspapers.
the *heavies* carried it with (in one case) a two page follow-up article
inside.
--
Steve Charlton |There may be intelligent life on other planets in the
st...@aces.demon.co.uk |galaxy, but somebody, somewhere, had to be first.
Carl Sagan
Loki
In ashen ink, Robert Holland (rhol...@wco.com) inscribed:
: Maybe these people assume there is life on other planets? The odds are
: in
: its favor. This news is rather ho-hum, a curiosity.
Umm ... please state your derivation of the odds? We knew -nothing-
about the odds before. Now, at least, we have evidence that life is
not an isolated incident; that gives us a much greater chance of
running into some, someday.
: The timing sure coincides nicely with the Mars shots planned to lift off
: in November 1996 and July 1997.
It would have co-incided better if they'd timed it when they were looking
for Mars funding and planning the Mars missions...
- Loki
--
+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Geoffrey Wiseman | http://tdg.uoguelph.ca/~ontarion/users/geoff |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
You asked for nothing / that's what I gave you
ash for ashes, dust for dust /
your trust is touching, but misguided
- Legendary Pink Dots
John Moreno
Derek Bell <db...@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
] Rocky Persaud <rocky....@utoronto.ca> writes:
] >Come on, hands up, who else thought about "The Andromeda Strain" when
] >they heard of this?
]
] I admit that the arrival of apparent microbes did - though if
] they run amok, I'll be impressed - undead Martian microbes!!! :-)
]
] I don't know if it was coincindence or a last minute change of
] plan, but BBC showed _The Andromeda Strain_ a few days ago.
I guess I lose out on being prepared. The Andromeda Strain hadn't even
crossed my mind until Persaud pointed it out. Now that it has I'd have
to say if it's been here for thousands of years I doubt it'll suddenly
become a problem now.
--
John Morenow
Londo Mollari
In...@localnet.com (Invid fan) wrote:
> In article <hummelDv...@netcom.com>, hum...@netcom.com (Franklin
> Hummel) wrote:
>
> > The other thing I found of interest was the difference in
> > reaction between Clinton's and Dole's reactions. Bill ("I want the Sci-Fi
> > Channel") Clinton came out and announced a panel would be set up right
> > away to deal with the implications of this discovery; you could tell he
> > was personally excited. Bob Dole, when asked for his reactions, made a
> > weak joke about having a convention delegate from Mars.
> >
>
> Well, when you consider the odds of Dole being around when a manned
> mission is mounted to Mars, or even when the next round of probes arrives,
> you can see his point :-)
Actually on of the literary SF magazines had a story a long while back
called "Dan Quail Goes to Mars" (or something similar).
Londo Mollari
In article <320BCD...@access.digex.net>, Steve Brinich
<ste...@access.digex.net> wrote:
> Franklin Hummel wrote:
>
> > The other thing I found of interest was the difference in reaction
> > between Clinton's and Dole's reactions. Bill ("I want the Sci-Fi
> > Channel") Clinton came out and announced a panel would be set up right
> > away to deal with the implications of this discovery; you could tell
> > he was personally excited. Bob Dole, when asked for his reactions,
> > made a weak joke about having a convention delegate from Mars.
>
> I heard a joke that scientists had discovered chemicals in the rock
> suggesting that there was once a spark of life in Bob Dole. ;-)
Pretty funny. Bob a rock and Al a piece of wood.
I recently heard this one:
"Bill, Al, Bob, and Jack. That is not an election folks, that is a
bowling team." (Might got the wording wrong, but that is the gist.)
Rocky Persaud
You're being rational. I was talking about an irrational, knee-jerk
first response (though not _my_ first response!)
Rocky
Robert Holland
Loki wrote:
>
> In ashen ink, Robert Holland (rhol...@wco.com) inscribed:
> : Maybe these people assume there is life on other planets? The odds are
> : in
> : its favor. This news is rather ho-hum, a curiosity.
>
> Umm ... please state your derivation of the odds? We knew -nothing-
> about the odds before. Now, at least, we have evidence that life is
> not an isolated incident; that gives us a much greater chance of
> running into some, someday.
What is special about the way Earth formed to make it unique among
the billions and billions of planets circling stars just in our own
galaxy?
What is special about the way our solar system formed to make it the
only one of its billions and billions of neighbors with planets?
The odds favor a universe filled with life.
--RH
Graham Head
> But the thing with "NASA PR" has got to be the dumbest thing I
>have heard in a long time. Again, it shows that folks (and Frisbee isn't
>the only one who has said this) didn't bother in the slightest to LEARN
>anything about what actually happened and how. He did not bother
>finding out the examination had been going on for a long time by a bunch
>of different scientists from around the world. (And what about the
>stupidity of the idea that all these scientists agreed to take part in
>a fraud -- and have their reputations ruined when other scientists
>examine the evidence -- so NASA could get funding? Duh.)
>
ago on Mars could be (a) good science and (b) timed (a little) and hyped
(quite a lot) by NASA to help with their drive for more funding. Its
called 'News Management' and it isn't good or bad, necessarily, it just
is.
--
Graham
Shaper
Both of the major Denver papers had front-page stories...
I thought it was a joke when I saw it. There I was, walking into a coffee
shop for some french toast and coffee before class, when I see the Denver
Post dispenser. Then I saw it in the Rocky Mountain News. I think it was
also on USA Today's front page....
I was late to class that morning.
I made myself stay up til the CNN broadcast (no easy feat... I work
graveyard shift, and it takes something close to this to make me stay up
for more than 30 hours straight), then checked the net a bit on top of
that.
MB
"The difference between the Enlightened and the terminally confused is
apparent only to the latter."
- The Enlightened One
Brian Griffin
Did anyone else note that today's USA Today (12 August) ran 4 letters
to the editor about the Mars find in a highlighted box, *all*
dismissive or derogatory, plus a column by one of their regulars in
the age old "all this money would be better spent on the needy here"
vein? Maybe some input from articulate folks who believe in the great
importance of the possible discovery and of Mars exploration would be
saluto
ry........
(BTW, edi...@usatoday.com is the appropriate EMail)
--
Brian Griffin gri...@cdt.infi.net
"Sitting in mangrove valley chasing light beams...."
-Robert Hunter/Jerry Garcia "Doin That Rag"
El gato de Chesire
phe...@interpath.com (John Moreno) wrote:
>I guess I lose out on being prepared. The Andromeda Strain hadn't even
>crossed my mind until Persaud pointed it out. Now that it has I'd have
>to say if it's been here for thousands of years I doubt it'll suddenly
>become a problem now.
What about "Who Goes There?" ? Several simmilarities there. The alien
has been frozen (well, fossilized) for thousandsof years in
Antarctica, some scientifics find it and...
One of the scariest SF short stories I've read.
Eric Manshun Choi
In article <4ujscv$a...@ccshst05.uoguelph.ca>,
Loki <gwis...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>: The timing sure coincides nicely with the Mars shots planned to lift off
>: in November 1996 and July 1997.
That particular Mars shot is the Mars Pathfinder rover, which will be LAUNCHED in November
1996 and LAND on Mars on July 4, 1997. Another mission, the Mars Global Surveyor, will
be launched in December.
>It would have co-incided better if they'd timed it when they were looking
>for Mars funding and planning the Mars missions...
Imagine if it had coincided with George Bush's abortive Moon-Mars Space Exploration
Initiative of 1989!
--
Eric M. Choi | Author of "From a Stone", in the
University of Toronto | September issue of SCIENCE FICTION AGE
Institute for Aerospace Studies | magazine. Now available at bookstores
e...@sdr.utias.utoronto.ca | and newsstands.
Eric Manshun Choi
In article <320BCD...@access.digex.net>,
Steve Brinich <ste...@access.digex.net> wrote:
> I heard a joke that scientists had discovered chemicals in the rock
>suggesting that there was once a spark of life in Bob Dole. ;-)
Bill Cameron on the CBC Newsworld morning show took great pains to explain to the viewers
that these were just "simple life forms, lower than lawyers".
Eric Manshun Choi
In article <wimlDvu...@netcom.com>, Wim Lewis <wi...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Both of Seattle's major dailies had it on the front page, above the fold.
>The major competition was info on the Flight 800 wreckage recovery efforts.
Most newspaper and TV reports had a similar juxtaposition: Possible Life on Mars/TWA 800.
I was immediately struck by a sense of wonder by the former...and saddened by how
readily we destroy life (including ourselves) on this planet by the latter.
Like the Apollo 8 Earth-rise photo, let us hope this discovery will help people appreciate
and protect all that we have on this planet. By exploring space, we learn more and more
about Earth.
Robert Holland
Eric Manshun Choi wrote:
>
> In article <4ujscv$a...@ccshst05.uoguelph.ca>,
> Loki <gwis...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> >: The timing sure coincides nicely with the Mars shots planned to lift off
> >: in November 1996 and July 1997.
>
> That particular Mars shot is the Mars Pathfinder rover, which will be LAUNCHED in November
> 1996 and LAND on Mars on July 4, 1997. Another mission, the Mars Global Surveyor, will
> be launched in December.
Ah, yes! The facts.
Thanks.
--RH
Graham Head
In article <32102...@news.arrakis.es>, El gato de Chesire
<ezeq...@arrakis.es> writes
That's the one I thought of. Although my response was 'Ironic. Nice
cultural cross-reference; back to life as a reprocessing of simulacra.
I wonder if any of the TV/Radio/Nespaper commentators will see the
connection; worthy of five minutes chat if they did. Who would they get
on?'
So there you have it. When the invasion comes, all the aliens have to
do is tap into cultural reservoirs of postmodern irony and I'll be so
busy contemplating the result that I won't lift a finger against them...
--
Graham
Loki
: the billions and billions of planets circling stars just in our own
: galaxy?
: What is special about the way our solar system formed to make it the
: only one of its billions and billions of neighbors with planets?
: The odds favor a universe filled with life.
You seem to have missed the point. The -odds-. We don't know the odds.
If the odds of life forming are infinitesimal, the earth doesn't -have-
to be special, it can just be lucky. That's what probability is about.
And since we know essentially nothing about the probability of life
forming anywhere, we have no evidence to base the above speculation
on. If you know more about the odds than the rest of us, feel free
to cite away...
- Loki
--
+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Geoffrey Wiseman | http://tdg.uoguelph.ca/~ontarion/users/geoff |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
"Victims ... Aren't we all."
Robert Holland
Loki wrote:
>
> In ashen ink, Robert Holland (rhol...@wco.com) inscribed:
> : What is special about the way Earth formed to make it unique among
> : the billions and billions of planets circling stars just in our own
> : galaxy?
>
> : What is special about the way our solar system formed to make it the
> : only one of its billions and billions of neighbors with planets?
>
> : The odds favor a universe filled with life.
>
> You seem to have missed the point. The -odds-. We don't know the odds.
>
> If the odds of life forming are infinitesimal, the earth doesn't -have-
> to be special, it can just be lucky. That's what probability is about.
> And since we know essentially nothing about the probability of life
> forming anywhere, we have no evidence to base the above speculation
> on. If you know more about the odds than the rest of us, feel free
> to cite away...
Get hold of yourself, Geoffrey! You've just told me that in an
infinite universe, life on earth depends on *luck.*
The probability of life throughout the universe is remarkably high,
because there is nothing unique about our sun or solar system. We find
life on our planet in most every nook and cranny, and every environment.
Given similar, unremarkable conditions elsewhere I'd expect to
find life is ubiquitous throughout the universe.
That we haven't observed life elsewhere is because of limited
observational ability. This limit does not affect the odds of
life at all--only the odds of our finding it.
Now, if you want to argue sentience, well that's a different
matter.
I think the amazing thing about the Martian rock is the age
of the life-stuff in its cracks. It may indicate life bloomed
much earlier than we suspected in our solar system.
--RH
Eric Tolle
Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> wrote:
>What is special about the way Earth formed to make it unique among
>the billions and billions of planets circling stars just in our own
>galaxy?
>What is special about the way our solar system formed to make it the
>only one of its billions and billions of neighbors with planets?
Answer: we don't know. Until recently, the only _real_ evidence we
had for this theory of 'typicalness' is that Sol was _apparently_ a
somewhat typical yellow dwarf (if unusually, not in a multiple star
system).
Going from 'Sol is a typical looking star' to 'habitable planets are
common', to 'life is common' are huge conceptual leaps, for which
until recently there was little to no direct evidence. _That_ is why
the recent discoveries ofextrasolar planets and (possible) life on
Mars is important. What came before was speculation, that ad the
whstful thinking of "well, there is life on Earth, therefore life must
be common".
>The odds favor a universe filled with life.
Interesting that you know what the 'odds' are, considerng that until
recently we had only one data point to calculate these odds. Do you
have information that the rest of the scientific community does not?
Data on stellar, planetary, and biological genesis perhaps? Or are we
proceeding from the idea of 'I _want_ life to be common in the
universe, therefore the odds say it _must_ be? Form what _I've_
heard, the odds are only beginning to be quantifiable.
Eric Tolle unde...@rain.org
Scott Colvin Beeler
Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> writes:
>Loki wrote:
>> In ashen ink, Robert Holland (rhol...@wco.com) inscribed:
>> : The odds favor a universe filled with life.
>>
>> You seem to have missed the point. The -odds-. We don't know the odds.
>>
>> If the odds of life forming are infinitesimal, the earth doesn't -have-
>> to be special, it can just be lucky. That's what probability is about.
>> And since we know essentially nothing about the probability of life
>> forming anywhere, we have no evidence to base the above speculation
>> on. If you know more about the odds than the rest of us, feel free
>> to cite away...
>
>Get hold of yourself, Geoffrey! You've just told me that in an
>infinite universe, life on earth depends on *luck.*
>
>The probability of life throughout the universe is remarkably high,
>because there is nothing unique about our sun or solar system. We find
>life on our planet in most every nook and cranny, and every environment.
>Given similar, unremarkable conditions elsewhere I'd expect to
>find life is ubiquitous throughout the universe.
Why? AFAIK Science doen't know exactly how "life" formed on Earth.
We don't know how likely that was to happen. If we look at 100
planets of similar size, atmosphere, distance from a similar sun, etc.
then we don't know how many would be expected to have life.
It could be 10 or 5 or 1 or 90 or anything. Without knowing the
causes we cannot accurately determine the likelihood of the effect.
Now if this probability is high, then "life on Mars" isn't that
amazing, but if it is really low, then the Earth is indeed "lucky."
>That we haven't observed life elsewhere is because of limited
>observational ability. This limit does not affect the odds of
>life at all--only the odds of our finding it.
Well, I sort of agree with you here. Since the universe is VERY big,
I tend to think that yes, there is life out there. But the term
"ubiquitous" is a little unsupported, since as I said, we don't have
any idea how common life is.
>Now, if you want to argue sentience, well that's a different
>matter.
Actually, I think that the leap from inorganic junk to life is a
bigger one than from life to sentience. We can look at fossils and
stuff and try to extrapolate the "odds" of evolution much easier
than the "odds" of life at the moment. There's a much better
record of what happened in that era of our planet than in the wayback
when little one-celled things were created. Still, sentience will
be much less common than life, of course.
One of the things fascinating about life on Mars is that it gives
some sort of clue about the "odds" of life. If life evolved
independently on Earth and Mars, then that's 2 planets out of 9 with
life--a very high percentage, compared to what some people would
guess.
Scott
Erich Schneider
>The probability of life throughout the universe is remarkably high,
>because there is nothing unique about our sun or solar system.
This, from the man who blithely stated that we can't be sure that
the asteroid of note was from Mars because (I paraphrase) "we don't
have any Martian rocks to chemically analyze". Sheesh.
--
Erich Schneider er...@bush.cs.tamu.edu http://bush.cs.tamu.edu/~erich
"The Hierophant is Disguised and Confused."
Wolfgang Schwanke
Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> writes:
>Get hold of yourself, Geoffrey! You've just told me that in an
>infinite universe, life on earth depends on *luck.*
I think what he's told you that we don't know on what it depends.
>The probability of life throughout the universe is remarkably high,
>because there is nothing unique about our sun or solar system.
We don't know a lot about other solar systems. Until very recently
we didn't know if they existed and how widespread they are. Anything
else about them is still unknown.
And we don't know what exact conditions have to meet for life to originate.
They could have been an extremely unlikely coincidence that only
happened exactly once in one small pond on this planet, and will
never repeat itself anywhere, even though other systems might be
very similar otherwhise.
>We find
>life on our planet in most every nook and cranny, and every environment.
But we know that _all_ of it is the offspring of _one_ _single_ _cell_
that swam around in some ocean 4 billion years ago. This single cell
was lucky enough to survive and reproduce, the presence of life on
earth everywhere is the result of its very successful reproduction
over millions of generations. Therefore the omnipresence of life
tells us nothing on how probable the emergence of life is, because
it's all the same family (literally) anyway.
We'd be able to make better guesses about the odds of life if we knew
by what processes that first cell emerged.
But that's the part we _dont't_ _know_
>Given similar, unremarkable conditions elsewhere I'd expect to
>find life is ubiquitous throughout the universe.
You can expect it, but you can't prove it.
>That we haven't observed life elsewhere is because of limited
>observational ability. This limit does not affect the odds of
>life at all--only the odds of our finding it.
Yes indeed. But we don't know what the odds are until we find it.
Until then it they might as well be zero.
I think the problem here is that so many popular science books
and TV shows have taken the idea of alien life for granted,
and that many people adopted the same point of view.
They base their argument on a mixture of enthusiasm and more or less
reasonable assumptions, which is fine as such. But it's not a proof.
Therefore until alien life has been positively identified, they
could be all wrong, and the universe could be completely dead.
And that's why finding life somewhere else is _still_ the
sensation it's presented as.
Greetings
Wolfgang
--
Elektropost: wo...@cs.tu-berlin.de | wo...@berlin.snafu.de | wo...@techno.de
WeltweitesSpinnweb: http://www.snafu.de/~wolfi/
IRC: wolfi | Am Heimcomputer sitz ich hier
RealLife: Wolfgang Schwanke | Programmier die Zukunft mir
Will Mengarini
I think the Weekly World News really missed an opportunity on this one.
They should have reported the story with a full page "Life On Mars"
headline, then presented the facts absolutely straight & deadpan,
as if the story had been written for the New York Times.
People would still be trying to figure it out.
Will Mengarini <sel...@eskimo.com>
"If you're up against someone more intelligent than you are,
do something totally insane and let him think himself to death."
--Pyanfar Chanur
Eric Manshun Choi
In article <4upail$6...@nw101.infi.net>,
Brian Griffin <gri...@cdt.infi.net> wrote:
>Did anyone else note that today's USA Today (12 August) ran 4 letters
>to the editor about the Mars find in a highlighted box, *all*
>dismissive or derogatory, plus a column by one of their regulars in
>the age old "all this money would be better spent on the needy here"
>vein? Maybe some input from articulate folks who believe in the great
>importance of the possible discovery and of Mars exploration would be
>saluto
>ry........
What was USA TODAY's editorial stance? I hope it wasn't something like
this:
TORONTO STAR Editorial on Possible Mars Life
Editorial in the Saturday, August 10, 1996 edition of the TORONTO STAR
newspaper, Insight section, page B2:
WHAT ABOUT EARTH?
The discovery of the fossilized remains of single-celled life that landed
here from Mars some 3.6 billion years ago has put politicians and
scientists into orbit.
US President Bill Clinton told a news conference that he was ordering Vice-
President Al Gore to find out what the discovery will mean to US space
priorities.
Maybe they could spend billions of dollars and find more dead microbes, or
even live ones, with manned expeditions to Mars.
Whatever they find, they certainly won't find a beautiful planet teeming
with such a variety of life as there is on this green Earth.
It's ironic that microbes on Mars generate more excitement than the fact
that three species an hour become extinct on Earth.
Or that the rate of extinction in this century is 100 times more than it
was before the coming of the Industrial Age.
Or that there are signs we are approaching the sixth great extinction on
Earth. The dinosaurs were just one.
The death of life on Earth is something to get more excited about than the
possibility of dead or alive microbes on Mars.
mik...@mindspring.com
>But we know that _all_ of it is the offspring of _one_ _single_
>_cell_ that swam around in some ocean 4 billion years ago. This
>single cell was lucky enough to survive and reproduce, the presence
>of life on earth everywhere is the result of its very successful
>reproduction over millions of generations. Therefore the
I thought that the modern cell is thought to be the result of
two or more different primitive cells living in symbiosis? Isn't the DNA
in the mitochondria a different type than in the other parts of a cell?
Its been quite a few years since I studied any biology, so of course
I may well be wrong. :-)
I wouldn't say that it is impossible for cellular life to have evolved
more than once on Earth, or Mars.
-- Mike Huskey
-- mik...@mindspring.com
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow
`[1;34;44mNet-Tamer V 1.06 Beta - Test Drive
Robert Holland
Eric Tolle wrote:
>
> Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> wrote:
>
> >What is special about the way Earth formed to make it unique among
> >the billions and billions of planets circling stars just in our own
> >galaxy?
> >What is special about the way our solar system formed to make it the
> >only one of its billions and billions of neighbors with planets?
>
> Answer: we don't know. Until recently, the only _real_ evidence we
> had for this theory of 'typicalness' is that Sol was _apparently_ a
> somewhat typical yellow dwarf (if unusually, not in a multiple star
> system).
>
> Going from 'Sol is a typical looking star' to 'habitable planets are
> common', to 'life is common' are huge conceptual leaps, for which
> until recently there was little to no direct evidence. _That_ is why
> the recent discoveries ofextrasolar planets and (possible) life on
> Mars is important. What came before was speculation, that ad the
> whstful thinking of "well, there is life on Earth, therefore life must
> be common".
>
>
> recently we had only one data point to calculate these odds. Do you
> have information that the rest of the scientific community does not?
> Data on stellar, planetary, and biological genesis perhaps? Or are we
> proceeding from the idea of 'I _want_ life to be common in the
> universe, therefore the odds say it _must_ be? Form what _I've_
> heard, the odds are only beginning to be quantifiable.
>
> Eric Tolle unde...@rain.org
Your argument against a life-filled universe is based on the
inability to detect life in distant places. Point the Hubble at
a dark, "empty" patch of sky and what do you find? Thousands
more galaxies.
I say the odds favor life because the mechanics that formed
our solar system and planet are common throughout the universe.
The material is present, the mechanics are the same. Thus, unless
you can point to something unique about our punky little solar
system, I think you have to assume it is similar to others.
Now, sentient life might just depend on luck. The dinosaurs ruled
for millions of years and failed to construct radios. It took
tool-making mammals to establish an interest in the stars.
So, while I believe the universe has mold in every nook and
cranny, there might not be so much contention for ham radio
bandwidth.
--RH
Robert Holland
> >because there is nothing unique about our sun or solar system.
>
> the asteroid of note was from Mars because (I paraphrase) "we don't
> have any Martian rocks to chemically analyze". Sheesh.
> --
> Erich Schneider er...@bush.cs.tamu.edu http://bush.cs.tamu.edu/~erich
>
> "The Hierophant is Disguised and Confused."
Ah, here we go. When out of ammunition, attack the person.
Hey, Erich, run the numbers. Of all the solar systems in the
universe (and the number is so high you cannot observe them all),
do you believe ours is unique? I don't. I don't believe life
is miraculous.
As to the Martian meteorite's origin, that has yet to be proven
beyond a doubt. It's likely, but not yet proven. Gonna have to
also prove the stuff in the cracks of that rock came from
Mars, too. Let's leave it to the scientists to conduct their
peer review.
What we need to learn is how Mars died, if it was once alive.
Could those same processes kill Earth? Where did the Martian
water go? Did it come to our planet? Mars is a fascinating
place and we have a *lot* to learn.
--RH
Bruce Baugh
>The probability of life throughout the universe is remarkably high,
>because there is nothing unique about our sun or solar system.
This is by no means the case. For starters, we seem to have abnormally
high levels of carbon. We _don't_ have a gas giant orbiting at about our
distance, and those seem to be pretty common. We don't know whether we
might have a higher, or lower, than usual rate of cometary and
asteroidal impacts. We may or may not have an unusually low neutrino
flux, and the cause of this (if it's true) may be important. And so
forth and so on.
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@kenosis.com <*> http://www.kenosis.com/bruce
See my Web pages for...
Daedalus Entertainment, makers of Feng Shui and Shadowfist
Christlib, the mailing list of Christian & libertarian ideas
New sf by S.M. Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at $50/hr, min $100
Robert Holland
> >Given similar, unremarkable conditions elsewhere I'd expect to
> >find life is ubiquitous throughout the universe.
>
> You can expect it, but you can't prove it.
That was my original point, Wolfgang. Wonder why the public
is so unenthralled by the Martian rock? Because we've come to
expect to find life elsewhere. Blame it on Sagan and his
Cosmos show, if you will. It's our working hypothesis.
Frankly, I doubt mankind can ever *prove* life exists throughout
the universe. That would require observation, and that ain't gonna
happen anytime soon.
> >That we haven't observed life elsewhere is because of limited
> >observational ability. This limit does not affect the odds of
> >life at all--only the odds of our finding it.
>
> Yes indeed. But we don't know what the odds are until we find it.
> Until then it they might as well be zero.
>
> I think the problem here is that so many popular science books
> and TV shows have taken the idea of alien life for granted,
> and that many people adopted the same point of view.
> They base their argument on a mixture of enthusiasm and more or less
> reasonable assumptions, which is fine as such. But it's not a proof.
Since there won't be any proof in our lifetimes, it does no harm
to work under the hypothesis of a living universe. As observation
trickles in, we can adjust the hypothesis. With some proof we
can make it a theory. As it stands, there is no evidence either
way.
> Therefore until alien life has been positively identified, they
> could be all wrong, and the universe could be completely dead.
> And that's why finding life somewhere else is _still_ the
> sensation it's presented as.
Finding Martian life adds little to our ability to extrapolate
to a living universe. You could argue it is our solar system
that is unique among the universe. Hard to fathom, and you'd
be hard-pressed to prove your hypothesis.
--RH
Rod Pennington
Robert Holland wrote:
> > Interesting that you know what the 'odds' are, considerng that until
> > recently we had only one data point to calculate these odds. Do you
> > have information that the rest of the scientific community does not?
> > Data on stellar, planetary, and biological genesis perhaps? Or are we
> > proceeding from the idea of 'I _want_ life to be common in the
> > universe, therefore the odds say it _must_ be? Form what _I've_
> > heard, the odds are only beginning to be quantifiable.
> >
> > Eric Tolle unde...@rain.org
>
> Your argument against a life-filled universe is based on the
> inability to detect life in distant places. Point the Hubble at
> a dark, "empty" patch of sky and what do you find? Thousands
> more galaxies.
For the record, reading the other fellow's post, I don't see where
he made an argument against a life-filled universe. He's asking
how you'd go about calculating the odds.
> I say the odds favor life because the mechanics that formed
> our solar system and planet are common throughout the universe.
Even if these forces and conditions are common throughout
the universe, how do you know how often they result in the creation
of life? Like the other fellow said, we only have one data point.
> The material is present, the mechanics are the same. Thus, unless
> you can point to something unique about our punky little solar
> system, I think you have to assume it is similar to others.
It's hard to point out unique features of our solar system when we've
really had only a tiny glimpse of others.
However, again for the record, my prejudice is the same as yours. I bet
there's lots of life out there.
Rod Pennington
Erik Max Francis
Robert Holland wrote:
> I say the odds favor life because the mechanics that formed
> our solar system and planet are common throughout the universe.
> The material is present, the mechanics are the same. Thus, unless
> you can point to something unique about our punky little solar
> system, I think you have to assume it is similar to others.
That's the whole problem. We just don't know. Anybody can _guess_ what the
odds of life are. Without more data, there is no scientific answer to the
question.
--
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE http://www.alcyone.com/max/ m...@alcyone.com
San Jose, California ICBM 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W R^4: the 4th R is respect
War's a game which were their subjects wise/Kings would not play at. -- Cowper
Scott Colvin Beeler
Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> writes:
>I say the odds favor life because the mechanics that formed
>our solar system and planet are common throughout the universe.
>The material is present, the mechanics are the same. Thus, unless
>you can point to something unique about our punky little solar
>system, I think you have to assume it is similar to others.
Just because similar situations to our solar system exist elsewhere
in the universe does not necessarily mean they will have life.
Just because the "mechanics" are the same does not mean the same
result will occur. Take Example A:
Have you ever watched how they choose winning lottery numbers (at
least in some cases)? Those things filling with ping-pong balls
bouncing around, with six (or whatever) occasionally shooting out
until they get the winning numbers? Well, every time they run the
machine, the same physical mechanics apply, to the velocities and
momentums of the balls, how they collide and bounce around, etc.
But the numbers which come out are NOT the same every time. The
results vary. Chance. Probability. And we DON'T know what the
probability of life evolving in a solar system like ours is.
You keep on using the term "the odds favor life" but WE DON'T KNOW
what the odds are. We know there are lots of galaxies out there,
likely to have lots of solar systems similar to ours. But we don't
know whether the probability of one of these systems having life is
1/10, 1/1000, 1/trillion, or even smaller.
Hence, independently evolved life on Mars is important because it
implies that this probability is significantly higher than zero.
How much higher is a good question.
Scott
Timothy J. Miller
On 14 Aug 1996 19:26:45 GMT, scbe...@unity.ncsu.edu (Scott Colvin Beeler) said:
S> One of the things fascinating about life on Mars is that it gives some
S> sort of clue about the "odds" of life. If life evolved independently
S> on Earth and Mars, then that's 2 planets out of 9 with life--a very
S> high percentage, compared to what some people would guess.
It'd be even higher odds than that-- 2 out of 3 that are anywhere
near liquid-water-temperature zone around our star.
-- Cerebus <tmi...@ims.advantis.com>
"And if it *is* true, and there *was* life on Mars-- someone'd better get
a probe with a drill out to Europa right quick."
Aaron Bergman
Robert Holland (rhol...@wco.com) wrote:
:
: Hey, Erich, run the numbers. Of all the solar systems in the
: do you believe ours is unique? I don't. I don't believe life
: is miraculous.
Perhaps you might want to look into the weak anthropic principle.
If the odds are low, the uniqueness of our own solar system is
irrelevant. Ithad to have occurred here because we are here. If
it had occurred somewhere else, we would be there.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/abergman.html>
The quote left intentionally blank.
John Staats
Clay Blankenship wrote:
>
> In article <londo-0808960054220001@news>,
> Londo Mollari <lo...@uoknor.edu> wrote:
> >I really did not have time today to search newspapers, but I did get
> >to see the major Oklahoma City paper while on break. The _Daily_
> >_Oklahoman_ (often called "The Disappointment" in OK) did not mention
> >the possible discovery of life, though probally extinct, on Mars
> >on its front page. The only article is part of a column on page three.
> >(This was the Wed. paper, the possible discovery was announced on
> >Tuesday. There was plenty of time to include a front page article.)
> >
> >I wonder what the coverage was like in other newspapers.
>
> It made the headline of the Houston Chronicle. Not surprising,
> considering that Johnson Space Center was involved. I don't
> remember the headline. Today's it made the second story, with
> "Mars rock: a migration for the ages."
I like the NY Post's headline, "MARS OR BUST!"
John Staats
***********************************
Crom. I've never prayed to you before, I have no time for it.
No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad;
why we fought, why we died. No. All that matters is that two
stood against many. That's what is important. Battle
pleases you, Crom, so grant me one request, grant me revenge.
And if you don't listen then to hell with you.
http://www.panix.com/~staats/ **********
Eric Tolle
Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> wrote:
Before i jump into this, both fists swinging, I would like to clear up
a misconception: I did not say that I believe life is unique t Earth,
or that it is even uncommon. What I did_ say is hat unfounded
assumptions were being made as to the evidence for extraterrestrial
life.
>Get hold of yourself, Geoffrey! You've just told me that in an
>infinite universe, life on earth depends on *luck.*
Luck, probabilty...six of one, half a dozen of the other in my book...
>The probability of life throughout the universe is remarkably high,
>because there is nothing unique about our sun or solar system. We find
Once again confusing 'is' with 'I believe'....
>life on our planet in most every nook and cranny, and every environment.
>Given similar, unremarkable conditions elsewhere I'd expect to
>find life is ubiquitous throughout the universe.
The thing is, you are _assuming_ once again that there is nothing
unique about our solar system- arguing once again from a single data
point. The fact is, until recently the major evidence we had that Sol
is a normal system was it's place on the Main Sequence, and angular
velocity readings of other stars. measurments of other stars
indicated that a lot of them apparently shed a lot of their angular
velocity into _something_, presumably planets. Other then that,
system and planetary formation theories proceeded mainly from
observations of our our system. Given that, theories based on one
data point are hardly extendable to other systems.
At this point, we only have evidence for gas giants around other
stars. Until we _do_ have evidence for terrestial planets, one cannot
state that there _are_ other planets with certainty- it _is_ however a
falsafiable hypothesis. We can say 'probably' Sol is typical, and
'likely' thereare other terrestial planets, but to say there 'are' is
stretching it.
Likewise, until the discovery of the Mars samples, we had only one
data point for the existance of life. Thus it is intemperate to say
that life 'is' common. we can say that the chemical processes that
lead up to bacterial life appear basic and easy, and we can state that
_given_the_same_conditions_ life would be common. However, we (until
the Mars rock) do not have any evidence as to how common those initial
conditions are. As I've said before, you cannot make any probability
calculations with a single data point.
>That we haven't observed life elsewhere is because of limited
>observational ability. This limit does not affect the odds of
>life at all--only the odds of our finding it.
I do agree with the first sentance. it is an issue thatmay not be
resolved until we have instruments capable of resolving a spectrograh
of an extra-solar planets atmosphere. However, in the absence of real
data, it's impossible to calculate the 'odds'. I myself belive that
life is common in the universe- that does not mean I mistake that
belief for anything else...
>Now, if you want to argue sentience, well that's a different
>matter.
Again, something for which we have only one data point. When you can
give me solid (as in introducing me) evidence for extraterrestial
sentience, then we have something to argue about. ;'
>I think the amazing thing about the Martian rock is the age
>of the life-stuff in its cracks. It may indicate life bloomed
>much earlier than we suspected in our solar system.
That is a good point- of course the probably development of life has
steadily been pushed farther and farther back in the last few
years....
Eric Tolle unde...@rain.org
"An' then Chi...@little.com, he come scramblin outta the
terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's
crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Eric Tolle
Rod Pennington <rod...@brcsun0.tamu.edu> wrote:
>Robert Holland wrote:
Oddly enough, I never saw Robert hollands reply to my post. it's not
on my mail que. Bizzare...
>> Your argument against a life-filled universe is based on the
>> inability to detect life in distant places. Point the Hubble at
>> a dark, "empty" patch of sky and what do you find? Thousands
>> more galaxies.
>For the record, reading the other fellow's post, I don't see where
>he made an argument against a life-filled universe. He's asking
>how you'd go about calculating the odds.
Right. that is precisely the point I was trying to make. i wasen't
arguing against the possibilty of life existing in the universe, I was
arguing against the statement that life _is_ common in the universe.
_must_
>> I say the odds favor life because the mechanics that formed
>> our solar system and planet are common throughout the universe.
>Even if these forces and conditions are common throughout
>the universe, how do you know how often they result in the creation
>of life? Like the other fellow said, we only have one data point.
Again correct. I will also point out that we only have the vaguest
idea of how common the processes are that made our planet habitable.
Unless Mr. Holland can give the specific odds for a planet to form in
the right location, with the right size, with the right local
conditions for the formation of life, then stating that the odds favor
life is premature, to say the least.
made it habitable.
>It's hard to point out unique features of our solar system when we've
>really had only a tiny glimpse of others.
My point in a nutshell. We can say "We think the processes are the
same, and we think our solar system is typical.", but to say it -is_
typical, well there simply isn't enough data for that yet.
>
>However, again for the record, my prejudice is the same as yours. I bet
>there's lots of life out there.
Oh same here, I personally believe life is common- but I conceed that
it _is_ a belief, with scanty (possibly until now) evidence to back it
up.
Ian Burrell
In article <4v2tnr$p...@news.rain.org>, Eric Tolle <unde...@rain.org> wrote:
>Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> wrote:
>
>Before i jump into this, both fists swinging, I would like to clear up
>a misconception: I did not say that I believe life is unique t Earth,
>or that it is even uncommon. What I did_ say is hat unfounded
>assumptions were being made as to the evidence for extraterrestrial
>life.
>
There is a distinction here betweem speculation and evidence. We have
lots of speculation that life in the universe is possible and probable
based on the existence of one data point, but there is evidence to
decide one way or the other.
>
>The thing is, you are _assuming_ once again that there is nothing
>unique about our solar system- arguing once again from a single data
>point. The fact is, until recently the major evidence we had that Sol
>is a normal system was it's place on the Main Sequence, and angular
>velocity readings of other stars. measurments of other stars
>indicated that a lot of them apparently shed a lot of their angular
>velocity into _something_, presumably planets. Other then that,
>system and planetary formation theories proceeded mainly from
>observations of our our system. Given that, theories based on one
>data point are hardly extendable to other systems.
>
>At this point, we only have evidence for gas giants around other
>stars. Until we _do_ have evidence for terrestial planets, one cannot
>state that there _are_ other planets with certainty- it _is_ however a
>falsafiable hypothesis. We can say 'probably' Sol is typical, and
>'likely' thereare other terrestial planets, but to say there 'are' is
>stretching it.
>
>Likewise, until the discovery of the Mars samples, we had only one
>data point for the existance of life. Thus it is intemperate to say
>that life 'is' common. we can say that the chemical processes that
>lead up to bacterial life appear basic and easy, and we can state that
>_given_the_same_conditions_ life would be common. However, we (until
>the Mars rock) do not have any evidence as to how common those initial
>conditions are. As I've said before, you cannot make any probability
>calculations with a single data point.
>
>
>I do agree with the first sentance. it is an issue thatmay not be
>resolved until we have instruments capable of resolving a spectrograh
>of an extra-solar planets atmosphere. However, in the absence of real
>data, it's impossible to calculate the 'odds'. I myself belive that
>life is common in the universe- that does not mean I mistake that
>belief for anything else...
>
There are too many variables to decide for certain. We are only now
starting to learn what the variables and processes are. Mars as a
second data point will help us refine our speculations. Until we get
evidence we can only guess at the odds, and right now we don't enough
to make good guesses.
>
>Again, something for which we have only one data point. When you can
>give me solid (as in introducing me) evidence for extraterrestial
>sentience, then we have something to argue about. ;'
>
Another question is how common life and sentience are. It is one
thing if there is handful of sentient species spread among billions of
galaxies so that our closest neighbor is millions of light years away,
and having a thriving galactic civilization in our own neighborhood.
All we know now that there is at least two planets with life, and at
least one with sentient life. Beyond that we know nothing.
>
>That is a good point- of course the probably development of life has
>steadily been pushed farther and farther back in the last few
>years....
>
One thing that Mars indicates is that life may be fragile. It may
develop easily but not thrive without the right conditions. It also
suggests that life may not easily pass beyond the single-celled stage.
Just look at Earth where for most of its history there were only
simple anaerobic organisms. It would be bad for the development of
extraterrestrials if planets covered in only bacteria, algae, and
lichen are common.
- Ian
--
-- Ian Burrell == ibur...@leland.stanford.edu **
<URL:http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~iburrell/>
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
-- Ambassador Kosh, "Believers"
Robert Holland
Scott Colvin Beeler wrote:
>
> Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> writes:
>
> >I say the odds favor life because the mechanics that formed
> >our solar system and planet are common throughout the universe.
> >you can point to something unique about our punky little solar
> >system, I think you have to assume it is similar to others.
>
> Just because similar situations to our solar system exist elsewhere
> in the universe does not necessarily mean they will have life.
> Just because the "mechanics" are the same does not mean the same
> result will occur. Take Example A:
>
> Have you ever watched how they choose winning lottery numbers (at
> least in some cases)? Those things filling with ping-pong balls
> bouncing around, with six (or whatever) occasionally shooting out
> until they get the winning numbers? Well, every time they run the
> machine, the same physical mechanics apply, to the velocities and
> momentums of the balls, how they collide and bounce around, etc.
> But the numbers which come out are NOT the same every time. The
> results vary. Chance. Probability. And we DON'T know what the
> probability of life evolving in a solar system like ours is.
Look at one solar system (the only one you can see). Probability
of life is 100%.
Let's say there is life in a solar system for every pick-six
matchup out of your machine. If you run that machine as many times
as there are solar systems in the universe, I think you'll discover
plenty of life, if you could actually detect it.
Pick bigger odds, say a trillion to one. There are so many solar
systems in the universe you still end up with life all over the
place.
Now, pick odds so that you have the number of solar systems in the
universe to one (us). Now you'd have to justify yourself for picking
those odds, and you'd probably turn to religion for help.
> You keep on using the term "the odds favor life" but WE DON'T KNOW
> what the odds are. We know there are lots of galaxies out there,
> likely to have lots of solar systems similar to ours. But we don't
> know whether the probability of one of these systems having life is
> 1/10, 1/1000, 1/trillion, or even smaller.
>
> Hence, independently evolved life on Mars is important because it
> implies that this probability is significantly higher than zero.
> How much higher is a good question.
Pardon me? How does life on Mars, in our solar system, extrapolate
to other solar systems more than life on Earth would? Does our system
with two living planets improve the odds of life elsewhere? The solar
system mechanics for Earth and Mars are identical, thus, no
extrapolation.
How do we know the process that brought the rock here didn't previously
take life from Earth *to* Mars, like some giant ping-pong match?
One thing is certain, given this newsgroup: Mars needs women!
--RH (Somewhere God is laughing at us...)
Robert Holland
Eric Tolle wrote:
>
> Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> wrote:
>
> Before i jump into this, both fists swinging, I would like to clear up
> a misconception: I did not say that I believe life is unique t Earth,
> or that it is even uncommon. What I did_ say is hat unfounded
> assumptions were being made as to the evidence for extraterrestrial
> life.
You can jump in swingin' if you like, Eric, but you and I both know
we are talking opinion here, in the absence of observation. This
discussion sprang up because someone wondered why the ho-hum repsonse
from the public to the rock from Mars. My argument was that the
public has come to expect a life-filled universe.
That said, let's see what you have to offer...
> >Get hold of yourself, Geoffrey! You've just told me that in an
> >infinite universe, life on earth depends on *luck.*
>
> Luck, probabilty...six of one, half a dozen of the other in my book...
Fair enough. I think the presence of good luck is in favor of life
throughout the universe. Apparently, you believe so, too.
> >The probability of life throughout the universe is remarkably high,
> >because there is nothing unique about our sun or solar system. We find
>
> Once again confusing 'is' with 'I believe'....
>
> >life on our planet in most every nook and cranny, and every environment.
> >Given similar, unremarkable conditions elsewhere I'd expect to
> >find life is ubiquitous throughout the universe.
Lacking citation, what is written in Usenet is merely opinion.
Surprised this needs repeating.
> The thing is, you are _assuming_ once again that there is nothing
> unique about our solar system- arguing once again from a single data
> point. The fact is, until recently the major evidence we had that Sol
> is a normal system was it's place on the Main Sequence, and angular
> velocity readings of other stars. measurments of other stars
> indicated that a lot of them apparently shed a lot of their angular
> velocity into _something_, presumably planets. Other then that,
> system and planetary formation theories proceeded mainly from
> observations of our our system. Given that, theories based on one
> data point are hardly extendable to other systems.
Actually, Eric, I'm assuming the processes that made our solar
system are the same that made every other solar system in the
universe. A cluster of matter forms a solar system, given time.
I think life is a reasonable result of this process, and science
has been unable to prove a divine interference in the appearance
of life. Conclusion: life is a natural fallout of certain conditions.
> At this point, we only have evidence for gas giants around other
> stars. Until we _do_ have evidence for terrestial planets, one cannot
> state that there _are_ other planets with certainty- it _is_ however a
> falsafiable hypothesis. We can say 'probably' Sol is typical, and
> 'likely' thereare other terrestial planets, but to say there 'are' is
> stretching it.
So, we believe the same thing, and are left arguing semantics.
> Likewise, until the discovery of the Mars samples, we had only one
> data point for the existance of life. Thus it is intemperate to say
> that life 'is' common. we can say that the chemical processes that
> lead up to bacterial life appear basic and easy, and we can state that
> _given_the_same_conditions_ life would be common. However, we (until
> the Mars rock) do not have any evidence as to how common those initial
> conditions are. As I've said before, you cannot make any probability
> calculations with a single data point.
>
> >That we haven't observed life elsewhere is because of limited
> >observational ability. This limit does not affect the odds of
> >life at all--only the odds of our finding it.
>
> I do agree with the first sentance. it is an issue thatmay not be
> resolved until we have instruments capable of resolving a spectrograh
> of an extra-solar planets atmosphere. However, in the absence of real
> data, it's impossible to calculate the 'odds'. I myself belive that
> life is common in the universe- that does not mean I mistake that
> belief for anything else...
If you understand the dynamics of the creation of our solar system,
and can show no reason for other parts of the universe to follow a
different dynamic, you can conclude that the processes which formed
your home are at work throughout, and that the sheer number of your
neighbors increases the likelihood their homes are liveable. Thus,
without observing life directly, you can deduce its likelihood.
It all remains a matter of belief until you have a confirmed
observation. Thus, the bickering will remain vicious because
the stakes are so small.
> >Now, if you want to argue sentience, well that's a different
> >matter.
>
> Again, something for which we have only one data point. When you can
> give me solid (as in introducing me) evidence for extraterrestial
> sentience, then we have something to argue about. ;'
Sorry, that's another matter.
> >I think the amazing thing about the Martian rock is the age
> >of the life-stuff in its cracks. It may indicate life bloomed
> >much earlier than we suspected in our solar system.
>
> That is a good point- of course the probably development of life has
> steadily been pushed farther and farther back in the last few
> years....
Ah. We conclude on a friendly note. There *is* hope for us hoomans!
--RH
Robert Holland
Eric Tolle wrote:
>
> Rod Pennington <rod...@brcsun0.tamu.edu> wrote:
[snipped some stuff]
> >However, again for the record, my prejudice is the same as yours. I bet
> >there's lots of life out there.
>
> Oh same here, I personally believe life is common- but I conceed that
> it _is_ a belief, with scanty (possibly until now) evidence to back it
> up.
I explained why I believe the public greeted the Mars rock discovery
without excitement.
Perhaps you gentlemen will share with me the basis for your belief
life is common throughout the universe. You've rejected probability,
and there are no observations (except the Mars rock, which comes from
the same solar system). You seem to reject the notion that the processes
which form solar systems are identical throughout the universe (the laws
of physics are arbitrary?).
So, do tell!
--RH
James Nicoll
snip
>The thing is, you are _assuming_ once again that there is nothing
>unique about our solar system- arguing once again from a single data
>point. The fact is, until recently the major evidence we had that Sol
>is a normal system was it's place on the Main Sequence, and angular
>velocity readings of other stars. measurments of other stars
>indicated that a lot of them apparently shed a lot of their angular
>velocity into _something_, presumably planets. Other then that,
>system and planetary formation theories proceeded mainly from
>observations of our our system. Given that, theories based on one
>data point are hardly extendable to other systems.
>
>At this point, we only have evidence for gas giants around other
>stars. Until we _do_ have evidence for terrestial planets, one cannot
>state that there _are_ other planets with certainty- it _is_ however a
>falsafiable hypothesis. We can say 'probably' Sol is typical, and
>'likely' thereare other terrestial planets, but to say there 'are' is
>stretching it.
>
Can we even say *that*? A fair number of the gas giants
found so far are in orbits very close to their primaries, a configuration
quite unlike the solar system. Granted, the search system is biased
towards big, close-in objects, but *going on the evidence so far*
our system may be atypical.
James Nicoll
--
" The moral, if you're a scholar don't pick up beautiful babes on deserted
lanes at night. Real Moral, Chinese ghost stories have mostly been written
by scholars who have some pretty strange fantasies about women."
Brian David Phillips
Chris Lawson
>
> This is by no means the case. For starters, we seem to have abnormally
> high levels of carbon. We _don't_ have a gas giant orbiting at about our
> distance, and those seem to be pretty common.
[snip]
Systems with gas giants at approx. 1 AU only *appear* to be common, since
they are the only systems we can detect right now. Any solar system like
pours wouldn't have a detectable stellar wobble. Our sun experiences a
wobble with an amplitude less than it's own diameter.
--
_____________________________________
Chris Lawson cl...@ozemail.com.au
_____________________________________
Loki
: universe (and the number is so high you cannot observe them all),
: do you believe ours is unique? I don't. I don't believe life
: is miraculous.
Uh-huh. "believe", "expect", "assume". These are the words
you're using, and I don't have any reason to argue with what
you believe, expect and assume. Feel free to do so as much
as you want.
- Loki
--
+------+------------+------------------------------------------+
| Loki | Geoffrey Wiseman | http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/5042 |
+------+------------+------------------------------------------+
"Come here, I think you're beautiful
I think you're beautiful, beautiful
some kind of angel, come inside" --SoM
Steve Patterson
In article <4v5pqt$9...@ccshst05.uoguelph.ca>, gwis...@uoguelph.ca (Loki) says:
>
>In ashen ink, Robert Holland (rhol...@wco.com) inscribed:
>
>
>I agree with th'other poster. Life-->sentience seems a gradual
>progression that requires no more big jumps like random-particle-mix -->
>life.
In this rare instance, I must side with Robert. I'm afraid that our tendancy
to see intelligence as a superior survival characteristic is just our
native "plains-ape-with-big-brain" pride.
There is no identifiable driver that encourages intelligence in species; the
mesozoic has many wonderful examples of diversified ecosystems without the
slightest hint of an intelligent species.
---
"Animals have contempt for animal rights; cats don't treasure diversity,
except in a gustatory sense." -- Frederica Mathewes-Green
<BRAG>Creator and maintainer of the Legions of Steel Web Page!</BRAG>
http://www.hookup.net/~losglobl
Loki
: a dark, "empty" patch of sky and what do you find? Thousands
: more galaxies.
You seem to equate "there is probably life out there somewhere"
with "the universe is filled with life". There's a big difference.
Sure, in an infinite universe, any chance for life is a good one,
but if there's one planet with life every twenty galaxies or so,
that's -not- a universe filled with life.
We don't know the odds. We don't know how "filled" the universe
will be.
: system, I think you have to assume it is similar to others.
Or you could assume nothing and rely on the scientific method,
assuming only what you can prove reasonably. I'm quite willing
to admit that other systems may operate very similarly to ours
with similar results but we don't -know- that yet. We've barely
begun to detect planets!
: Now, sentient life might just depend on luck. The dinosaurs ruled
I agree with th'other poster. Life-->sentience seems a gradual
progression that requires no more big jumps like random-particle-mix -->
life.
- Loki
--
+------+------------+------------------------------------------+
| Loki | Geoffrey Wiseman | http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/5042 |
+------+------------+------------------------------------------+
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe: attack ships on fire off
the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the
Tanhauser gate. All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in
the rain. Time to die."
Bruce Baugh
>There is no identifiable driver that encourages intelligence in species; the
>mesozoic has many wonderful examples of diversified ecosystems without the
>slightest hint of an intelligent species.
Actually, I agree with this, too, and regard it as a key reason why I
don't expect to find lots of intelligent life out there. My current best
guess is for a life-rich but mind-poor universe.
Scott Colvin Beeler
Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> writes:
>Let's say there is life in a solar system for every pick-six
>matchup out of your machine. If you run that machine as many times
>as there are solar systems in the universe, I think you'll discover
>plenty of life, if you could actually detect it.
>
>Pick bigger odds, say a trillion to one. There are so many solar
>systems in the universe you still end up with life all over the
>place.
>
>Now, pick odds so that you have the number of solar systems in the
>universe to one (us). Now you'd have to justify yourself for picking
>those odds, and you'd probably turn to religion for help.
Me turn to religion, to support this? *giggle* That's...interesting.
OK, but seriously. Yes, if I picked any odds specifically I'd
have to justify them. Of course, so would you if you picked any. And
neither of us can. Your earlier statements about "the odds favor life"
need some justification, which I haven't seen yet. Fortunately for
me, I'm not trying to argue that life doesn't exist elsewhere in the
universe, I'm only arguing that we can't justify statements one way
or the other. Lucky me. :)
Anyway, the "lottery numbers" bit I threw in to show that the
universe is not a strictly deterministic place. You fire that sucker
up, and you don't get the same result every time. There's no
reason to say that the evolution of life is different. If you look
at other solar systems/planets, the same "mechanics" apply in terms
of physics, etc. but the results need not be the same in every case.
>Pardon me? How does life on Mars, in our solar system, extrapolate
>to other solar systems more than life on Earth would? Does our system
>with two living planets improve the odds of life elsewhere? The solar
>system mechanics for Earth and Mars are identical, thus, no
>extrapolation.
Yes, but the planetary mechanics are different. Mars is further from
the sun than Earth. They are different size, have different
atmosphere, etc. If all that matters is the solar system, we should
be wondering why there isn't life on Mercury, or Jupiter, or Pluto.
Granted, the sun is the same for each, but because the planets are
different, the cases are independent. And, yes, we can extrapolate
better from two cases than from one.
>How do we know the process that brought the rock here didn't previously
>take life from Earth *to* Mars, like some giant ping-pong match?
Actually, my favorite theory right now is that some rock brought
life from Mars to Earth, which we evolved from. It's kind of cute.
Screws my (and others') theories about life evolving independently
on both planets, but what the hell. :)
Scott
Scott Colvin Beeler
spatt...@wwdc.com (Steve Patterson) writes:
>In article <4v5pqt$9...@ccshst05.uoguelph.ca>, gwis...@uoguelph.ca (Loki) says:
>>
>>I agree with th'other poster. Life-->sentience seems a gradual
>>progression that requires no more big jumps like random-particle-mix -->
>>life.
>
>In this rare instance, I must side with Robert. I'm afraid that our tendancy
>to see intelligence as a superior survival characteristic is just our
>native "plains-ape-with-big-brain" pride.
>
>There is no identifiable driver that encourages intelligence in species; the
>mesozoic has many wonderful examples of diversified ecosystems without the
>slightest hint of an intelligent species.
Well, intelligence is a survival characteristic, so with everything else
equal, I would expect the smarter species to have an advantage.
Whether intelligence is enough to offset toughness, or adaptability,
or other traits is a good question. I think there is a tendancy
towards brains though, in general. Besides apes, there are dolphins,
and dogs, and other species out there today which are well up the IQ
chart from what they evolved from (at least I think so). These are
a small percentage of the species out there, but a significant one
to take notice of.
On the other hand, AFAIK we don't even know how the first "life" came
into existence on Earth. Also AFAIK it only happened once on Earth,
and everything evolved from that one. So based on that really really
skimpy evidence I think intelligence from life is a more likely natural
trend than life from a mess of stuff.
Scott
Ian A. York
In article <4v7qsd$u...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>,
Scott Colvin Beeler <scbe...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>
>Well, intelligence is a survival characteristic, so with everything else
>equal, I would expect the smarter species to have an advantage.
If you mean "human or near-human intelligence", then with a sample size of
1 you can't make this statement and there's evidence that suggests it's
not generally true.
There's no doubt that a moderate increase in intelligence can give a
survival advantage to some animals. Thus, it's a general truth that
predators tend to be smarter than prey. However, the enormous weight of
evidence suggests that increasing intelligence over some limit is *not* a
survival characteristic.
No, I'm not going to make the usual "humans are going to wipe themselves
out because of their intelligence" argument, which I think is rather
silly. The brutal truth is that having a large brain is a terrible
burden for an animal. Quite apart from the birth complications humans
have because of their large heads (which is probably the result of a
peculiar series of evolutionary quirks, rather than an inevitable
outcome) the brain is an energy pig.
Human brains use - what, something like 20% of the energy of the resting
body? I can't find a figure right now, but it's not really critical. At
some point, evolutionarily, the advantages of intelligence are going to be
outweighed by the costs of a large brain. In other words, your greater
intelligence doesn't bring in as much energy (read: produce as many
offspring) as it takes to fuel that greater intelligence.
The question, then, becomes: is that point of decreasing return usually
below the human level? History suggests that it is. There's only one
species among the millions that have ever existed on Earth that have
developed human intelligence. (So far as we know, of course.) Well, two,
maybe, depending on whether Neanderthals were a different species of not
and depending on how bright they were; but that doesn't change the
argument.
One argument against this might be that there simply hasn't been enough
time for human or near-human intelligence to have developed. Unlikely;
it didn't take long for humans to evolve it - a few hundred thousand
years, a mere blink of a planet's eye.
More likely, the argument that human or near-human intelligence is a
survival trait is true, but only in very specific cases. How specific are
those cases? The driver for intelligence in humans is still under debate,
of course, but most of the arguments seem to depend on an unusual
combination of anatomical coincidences and climate change, which together
forced animals originally developed for an arboreal life onto the ground
and then onto the plains, and into an evolutionary niche for which they
were poorly designed.
Since n=1, we can't really make any real conclusions; but simply because
n=1, I would lean to the suggestion that human or near-human intelligence
is not, in general, a survival trait. It's even harder to generalize to
other hypothetical life forms and non-terran ecologies; but reasoning
that intelligence is always going to be an energy pig (and yes, I can
come up with scenarios in which that isn't true too) then I'd suspect
that life might be much more common than intelligent life.
Followups set to rec.arts.sf.science only.
Ian
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
Jerry Bryson
> >There is no identifiable driver that encourages intelligence in species; the
At least, we don't know of any
> >mesozoic has many wonderful examples of diversified ecosystems without the
> >slightest hint of an intelligent species.
>
> Actually, I agree with this, too, and regard it as a key reason why I
> don't expect to find lots of intelligent life out there.
Or there may be intellegence, but not techncal intellegence. Some suspect
dolfins are as smart as we are, but they've never invented fire.
Scott Colvin Beeler
Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> writes:
>I explained why I believe the public greeted the Mars rock discovery
>without excitement.
Yes, and I realize that we have gone off the topic of that, so to
slip back on:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your point was that people
weren't excited by the discovery because they already believe there's
life out there in the universe somewhere. The point many people in
this thread have been making is that there isn't any evidence
backing up such a belief (until the Mars discovery).
So even though before the discovery I "believed" in life elsewhere,
now that significant evidence has been found, I am excited. And
I am dissappointed that lots of people aren't excited, because they
apparently don't realize that having evidence of something is important.
>Perhaps you gentlemen will share with me the basis for your belief
>life is common throughout the universe. You've rejected probability,
>and there are no observations (except the Mars rock, which comes from
>the same solar system). You seem to reject the notion that the processes
>which form solar systems are identical throughout the universe (the laws
>of physics are arbitrary?).
Prior to the Mars discovery, I had no real basis for believing that
life existed elsewhere in the universe. It was just a gut feeling,
unsupported, a hunch. My opinion was actually probably similar to
yours: that the universe is large and I had no reason to think
that our planet was special. But this is not evidence. Now we have
evidence (if it proves to be true) that there is life on another
planet. That is a big deal. And it in turn implies that life
could be, as you say, "common throughout the universe." That is
another big deal.
Now, to nitpick your points above:
1) I don't reject probability, I just don't accept it as evidence
when we don't know WHAT the probability of life IS.
2) Yes, there have been no observations. That is why the first
one (the Mars rock) IS important. And although it comes from the
same system, it comes from a different planet, which is an important
distinction.
3) The processes (if that means the physics) are the same, it's just
that the same processes do not always have the same results. Because
the start with different stuff, or stuff in different places. Hence
some systems have binary stars, or white dwarfs, or red giants, etc.
Hence some planets are gas giants and some are rock, some are close to
the sun and some are far, some have more elliptical orbits, etc.
Hence there are asteroids, comets, black holes, etc. So we should
not expect every planet to have life just because physics is constant.
Scott
Robert A. Woodward
In article <321489C0...@alcyone.com>, Erik Max Francis
<m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> Robert Holland wrote:
>
> > I say the odds favor life because the mechanics that formed
> > our solar system and planet are common throughout the universe.
> > The material is present, the mechanics are the same. Thus, unless
> > you can point to something unique about our punky little solar
> > system, I think you have to assume it is similar to others.
>
> That's the whole problem. We just don't know. Anybody can _guess_ what the
> odds of life are. Without more data, there is no scientific answer to the
> question.
>
The life optimists base their belief on the observation that life appeared
on Earth relatively quickly (in fact almost as soon as it could).
Robert Holland
Loki wrote:
>
> In ashen ink, Robert Holland (rhol...@wco.com) inscribed:
> : inability to detect life in distant places. Point the Hubble at
> : a dark, "empty" patch of sky and what do you find? Thousands
> : more galaxies.
>
> You seem to equate "there is probably life out there somewhere"
> with "the universe is filled with life". There's a big difference.
> Sure, in an infinite universe, any chance for life is a good one,
> but if there's one planet with life every twenty galaxies or so,
> that's -not- a universe filled with life.
>
> We don't know the odds. We don't know how "filled" the universe
> will be.
Are we gonna split hairs? A few billion planets hosting life
versus a few hundred billion such planets in our vicinity?
In the face of such vast numbers, we'll probably never find
out the reality of the situation.
> : system, I think you have to assume it is similar to others.
>
> Or you could assume nothing and rely on the scientific method,
> assuming only what you can prove reasonably. I'm quite willing
> to admit that other systems may operate very similarly to ours
> with similar results but we don't -know- that yet. We've barely
> begun to detect planets!
The scientific method begins with a hypothesis. I've stated mine
and you've stated yours and now we run experiments to detect
which is more accurate. Unfortunately, we neglected to give
our lab folks the tools they need to find out. So I guess we can
just sit and argue hypotheticals. That's what usenet is for. :-)
> : Now, sentient life might just depend on luck. The dinosaurs ruled
>
> I agree with th'other poster. Life-->sentience seems a gradual
> progression that requires no more big jumps like random-particle-mix -->
> life.
Fair enough. That's another hypothesis. Actually, it's one our
lab folk can sink their teeth into. Have at it you scientists!
This educated public hungers for *answers!*
--RH
Robert Holland
> : universe (and the number is so high you cannot observe them all),
> : do you believe ours is unique? I don't. I don't believe life
> : is miraculous.
>
> Uh-huh. "believe", "expect", "assume". These are the words
> you're using, and I don't have any reason to argue with what
> you believe, expect and assume. Feel free to do so as much
> as you want.
Bless you! After all, that was the basis for the genesis of this
thread. Someone wondered why the public was blase about the Mars
rock. I think the public expects to find life elsewhere.
--RH
Robert Holland
Triple Quadrophenic wrote:
>
> In article <3214F7...@wco.com>, rhol...@wco.com (Robert Holland)
> says...
> >
>
> >Look at one solar system (the only one you can see). Probability
> >of life is 100%.
> >
> >matchup out of your machine. If you run that machine as many times
> >as there are solar systems in the universe, I think you'll discover
> >plenty of life, if you could actually detect it.
> >
> >Pick bigger odds, say a trillion to one. There are so many solar
> >systems in the universe you still end up with life all over the
> >place.
> >
> >Now, pick odds so that you have the number of solar systems in the
> >universe to one (us). Now you'd have to justify yourself for picking
> >those odds, and you'd probably turn to religion for help.
>
>
> You'd have to justify using ANY number for the odds. That's the whole point
> of this argument - NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE ODDS ARE OF A PLANET HARBOURING
> LIFE.
I'm sorry if I lead you to believe I'd be so bold as to state the
numerical
odds. You are right. No one can state these odds, especially since we
don't
know how big the universe is, to begin with. I just look up at night and
wonder, what is the purpose for those lights? To entertain us? Is there
a purpose to them? Is there a purpose to us? Seems rather egocentric
to imagine this rock is the only place where such questions are asked.
> You seem to think that religion needs to be called in to justify odds of
> more than several gazillions. Yet you state that you think the odds favour
> life - with no evidence at all apart from your belief. I think I know who's
> closer to turning to religion here.
Religion dictates divine influence in creation of life and
has argued the earth is unique. Thus, saying earth is unique among the
entire universe is a similar opinion.
Taking this out of the realm of faith, the question becomes, "who
knows?"
Say, if Jesus returns, what would you ask him (or her)? I'd ask if we
were alone, and if not, where's the party?
--RH
Scott Colvin Beeler
Chris Lawson <cl...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>Scott Colvin Beeler wrote:
>
>> Anyway, the "lottery numbers" bit I threw in to show that the
>> universe is not a strictly deterministic place. You fire that sucker
>> up, and you don't get the same result every time. There's no
>> reason to say that the evolution of life is different. If you look
>> at other solar systems/planets, the same "mechanics" apply in terms
>> of physics, etc. but the results need not be the same in every case.
>
>Be careful about the use of the word "deterministic". Chaos theory
>is deterministic, but it's also unpredictable.
Point taken. "Unpredictable" is the word I should have used.
I'm getting sloppy.
Scott
Erik Max Francis
Robert A. Woodward wrote:
> The life optimists base their belief on the observation that life appeared
> on Earth relatively quickly (in fact almost as soon as it could).
Naturally, and this is a good argument. However, in light of lack of any more
empirical data, it is purely speculation.
(I am of the _opinion_ that life -- at least primitive life -- is extremely
common in the Universe in all variety of forms. However, I'm aware that this
is merely opinion because there is no scientific evidence to back it up.)
--
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE http://www.alcyone.com/max/ m...@alcyone.com
San Jose, California ICBM 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W R^4: the 4th R is respect
War's a game which were their subjects wise/Kings would not play at. -- Cowper
Triple Quadrophenic
>Look at one solar system (the only one you can see). Probability
>of life is 100%.
>
>Let's say there is life in a solar system for every pick-six
>matchup out of your machine. If you run that machine as many times
>as there are solar systems in the universe, I think you'll discover
>plenty of life, if you could actually detect it.
>
>Pick bigger odds, say a trillion to one. There are so many solar
>systems in the universe you still end up with life all over the
>place.
>
>Now, pick odds so that you have the number of solar systems in the
>universe to one (us). Now you'd have to justify yourself for picking
>those odds, and you'd probably turn to religion for help.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You'd have to justify using ANY number for the odds. That's the whole point
of this argument - NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE ODDS ARE OF A PLANET HARBOURING
LIFE.
You seem to think that religion needs to be called in to justify odds of
more than several gazillions. Yet you state that you think the odds favour
life - with no evidence at all apart from your belief. I think I know who's
closer to turning to religion here.
--
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_H...@sbphrd.com or fj...@tutor.open.ac.uk
All Opinions My Own (So My Employer Tells Me)
Matt Austern
spatt...@wwdc.com (Steve Patterson) writes:
> You are, of course, free to do so. However, I don't think that the evidence
> is strong enough to support your thesis. As you'd noted in your article,
> many species have stopped evolving and have continued on for several
> million years; most notably sharks and certain insects. Also, in the great
> majority of those species which are *still* evolving, there has been no
> marked increase in cranial size nor in CNS tissue.
>
> If we measure evolutionary success by percentage of biomass, then intelligence
> hardly measures up. (Damn, I wish I hadn't sold those bio books, the ones
> with the hard numbers in 'em...)
One of my favorite lines from Stephen Jay Gould is that we aren't
living in the Age Of Man, but in the age of arthropods. Arthropods
are fantastically successful by any standard, and none of them have
terribly large brains.
Robert Holland
Scott Colvin Beeler wrote:
>
> Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> writes:
>
> >I explained why I believe the public greeted the Mars rock discovery
> >without excitement.
>
> Yes, and I realize that we have gone off the topic of that, so to
> slip back on:
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your point was that people
> weren't excited by the discovery because they already believe there's
> life out there in the universe somewhere. The point many people in
> this thread have been making is that there isn't any evidence
> backing up such a belief (until the Mars discovery).
Yes. I realize this point of evidence. We also have the martian
lander pouring dust into soup and sniffing for the byproducts of
life. Anyway, those expensive bits of evidence were negative.
> So even though before the discovery I "believed" in life elsewhere,
> now that significant evidence has been found, I am excited. And
> I am dissappointed that lots of people aren't excited, because they
> apparently don't realize that having evidence of something is important.
Please don't be disappointed with the public. We recognize there is
evidence of *something* and will wait for an explanation of just
what it is.
> >Perhaps you gentlemen will share with me the basis for your belief
> >life is common throughout the universe. You've rejected probability,
> >and there are no observations (except the Mars rock, which comes from
> >the same solar system). You seem to reject the notion that the processes
> >which form solar systems are identical throughout the universe (the laws
> >of physics are arbitrary?).
>
> Prior to the Mars discovery, I had no real basis for believing that
> life existed elsewhere in the universe. It was just a gut feeling,
> unsupported, a hunch. My opinion was actually probably similar to
> yours: that the universe is large and I had no reason to think
> that our planet was special. But this is not evidence. Now we have
> evidence (if it proves to be true) that there is life on another
> planet. That is a big deal. And it in turn implies that life
> could be, as you say, "common throughout the universe." That is
> another big deal.
>
> Now, to nitpick your points above:
> 1) I don't reject probability, I just don't accept it as evidence
> when we don't know WHAT the probability of life IS.
Fair enough. I'm just blathering on about huge numbers and lack
of uniqueness. Ain't got no basis to set real odds.
> 2) Yes, there have been no observations. That is why the first
> one (the Mars rock) IS important. And although it comes from the
> same system, it comes from a different planet, which is an important
> distinction.
I hope we don't blow a wad of valuable observational resource on
a manned mission to gather up Mars rocks. That could kill off the
innovative, unmanned observational projects in the works.
> 3) The processes (if that means the physics) are the same, it's just
> that the same processes do not always have the same results. Because
> the start with different stuff, or stuff in different places. Hence
> some systems have binary stars, or white dwarfs, or red giants, etc.
> Hence some planets are gas giants and some are rock, some are close to
> the sun and some are far, some have more elliptical orbits, etc.
> Hence there are asteroids, comets, black holes, etc. So we should
> not expect every planet to have life just because physics is constant.
>
> Scott
True enough, but if the numbers of samples are so huge, then perhaps
that number exceeds the possible permutations. (Ugh, I just had a vision
of a bad sf version of "alternate earth".) Anyway, this universe is
a really cool place to be making observations!
Thanks for taking time to yammer with me on this topic.
--RH
Robert Holland
> >At this point, we only have evidence for gas giants around other
> >stars. Until we _do_ have evidence for terrestial planets, one cannot
> >state that there _are_ other planets with certainty- it _is_ however a
> >falsafiable hypothesis. We can say 'probably' Sol is typical, and
> >'likely' thereare other terrestial planets, but to say there 'are' is
> >stretching it.
> >
> Can we even say *that*? A fair number of the gas giants
> found so far are in orbits very close to their primaries, a configuration
> quite unlike the solar system. Granted, the search system is biased
> towards big, close-in objects, but *going on the evidence so far*
> our system may be atypical.
Due to observational limitation, we cannot yet see any solar system
similar to ours, thus we can't say we have evidence to show our
solar system is atypical. We must find a way to remove our
blinders.
I think manned trips to Mars would eat vital capital needed for
moon-based, or orbital observatories (unmanned). Hell, send a
Hubble out past Saturn (but don't forget to grease the antenna).
--RH
Chris Lawson
Scott Colvin Beeler wrote:
> Anyway, the "lottery numbers" bit I threw in to show that the
> universe is not a strictly deterministic place. You fire that sucker
> up, and you don't get the same result every time. There's no
> reason to say that the evolution of life is different. If you look
> at other solar systems/planets, the same "mechanics" apply in terms
> of physics, etc. but the results need not be the same in every case.
Be careful about the use of the word "deterministic". Chaos theory
is deterministic, but it's also unpredictable.
--
Chris Lawson
Steve Patterson wrote:
> In this rare instance, I must side with Robert. I'm afraid that our tendancy
> to see intelligence as a superior survival characteristic is just our
> native "plains-ape-with-big-brain" pride.
I disagree. I think there is very good evidence that as evolution
continues, intelligence increases. This doesn't seem to apply to
those species that have settled in a niche: cockroaches and sharks, etc.
which have remained morphologically consistent for many millions of
years.
But there's plenty of evidence just from the *mammal* evolutionary
tree that there is some sort of evolutionary pressure to increase
intelligence.
Personally I think humans just got over a local hump in the evolution
of intelligence, like a river that winds its way slowly across a plain
then finds itself plunging down a thousand-foot waterfall.
It may be that human-level intelligence is rare in the universe, but
I certainly believe that there *is* a survival advantage in
intelligence. There are several "design flaws" in humans that seem to
have evolved to accomodate giving birth to babies with enormous brains,
and giving birth to them years before they're mature enough to care
for themselves. If big brains conferred no advantage, none of these
designs would have evolved.
> There is no identifiable driver that encourages intelligence in species; the
> mesozoic has many wonderful examples of diversified ecosystems without the
> slightest hint of an intelligent species.
1. There's also no identifiable driver that encourages sexual
differentiation.
2. The whole point of evolution is that it takes time for things to
happen. You might as well say that feathers offer no survival value
because there are no fossilised feathers from the Pre-Cambrian!
Chris Lawson
Steve Patterson wrote:
> >I disagree. I think there is very good evidence that as evolution
> >continues, intelligence increases.
>
> You are, of course, free to do so. However, I don't think that the evidence
> is strong enough to support your thesis. As you'd noted in your article,
> many species have stopped evolving and have continued on for several
> million years; most notably sharks and certain insects. Also, in the great
> majority of those species which are *still* evolving, there has been no
> marked increase in cranial size nor in CNS tissue.
Of course, because having captured their niche, they only evolve to
improve their ability to exploit that niche. However, almost every "new"
phylum appears to be more intelligent than the last. Also, with the
mammals, there appears to be a correlation between recency of divergence
and intelligence.
> If we measure evolutionary success by percentage of biomass, then intelligence
> hardly measures up. (Damn, I wish I hadn't sold those bio books, the ones
> with the hard numbers in 'em...)
Absolutely. In the Amazon, the biomass of *ants* is FOUR times larger
than the biomass of all the mammals put together.
But you could use this argument to show that bacteria are the most
successful form of life, and therefore there is no evidence that
multi-cellularity has survival value.
> >I certainly believe that there *is* a survival advantage in
> >intelligence. There are several "design flaws" in humans that seem to
> >have evolved to accomodate giving birth to babies with enormous brains,
> >and giving birth to them years before they're mature enough to care
> >for themselves. If big brains conferred no advantage, none of these
> >designs would have evolved.
>
> Careful; you're edging into the classic "evolution by design" error. What
> seems to have happened is that the adaptations necessary to allow larger
> brain sizes haven't come at such a high cost to the species that it was
> driven extinct. We can reliably draw no further conclusions from this
> fact.
I was trying to avoid the "evolution by design." It's hard to choose
words that can't be misread... All I meant was: humans have certain
anatomical features that would appear to reduce our survival chances.
These features can be explained, however, if having a larger brain
conferred a better chance of survival than having a smaller pelvis and a
better carrying angle and a more developed infant at birth. Given that
both evolutionary processes in the brain and the pelvis occurred
apparently simultaneously, it is reasonable to suggest that the
increasing brain size *did* provide an edge in survival.
> >> There is no identifiable driver that encourages intelligence in species; the
> >> mesozoic has many wonderful examples of diversified ecosystems without the
> >> slightest hint of an intelligent species.
> >
> >1. There's also no identifiable driver that encourages sexual
> >differentiation.
>
> Wrong. On the assumption that you mean sexual dimorphism, there are a few
> drivers towards differentiation; mating rituals (tails, coxcombs, etc),
> sexual division-of-labour (teats, pouches, manes), and at least one more
> that my sinus-congested brain refuses to recall.
Ooops! If you listen closely you will hear the sound of my hat being
eaten.
> >2. The whole point of evolution is that it takes time for things to
> >happen. You might as well say that feathers offer no survival value
> >because there are no fossilised feathers from the Pre-Cambrian!
>
> But feathers *have* continued on to many different species of birds.
> Intelligence (at least, of the tool-making variety) has only decended to
> a few hominids, only one of which still survives.
You've defined intelligence far too narrowly here. ALL living things have
intelligence (as in information-processing capabilities) with the
possible exception of viruses. Even bacteria will seek out food and avoid
noxious stimulants, and to me this is a form of intelligence.
Perhaps we've been using different terms. If you meant "there's no
evidence that *human-level* intelligence was inevitable", I'd agree with
you, on the proviso that there seems to be an evolutionary tendency
towards increasing brain:body ratios. Because of this, I'd disagree with
the statement that intelligence per se has no evidence of survival value.
And I'd say that, although human intellgience looks like a bit of a
fluke, once it evolved it created an enormous advantage. The
"non-surviving" hominids were probably wiped out, not by sabre-toothed
tigers, but by more developed hominids who competed better for the same
ecological niche.
Bruce Baugh
>rock. I think the public expects to find life elsewhere.
On this point I think you're quite right, for many values of "the
public". :-) For others, I think "the public" isn't in a position to
have any clue about the matter at all, any more than they are about
where Manchus come from or what the pineal gland is for.
(During the years I temped, I ran into too many
don't-know-and-don't-WANT-to-know types.)
Emmet O'Brien
In article <3218B8...@wco.com>, Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> wrote:
>Scott Colvin Beeler wrote:
>>
>> Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> writes:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your point was that people
>> weren't excited by the discovery because they already believe there's
>> life out there in the universe somewhere. The point many people in
>> this thread have been making is that there isn't any evidence
>> backing up such a belief (until the Mars discovery).
>
>Yes. I realize this point of evidence. We also have the martian
>lander pouring dust into soup and sniffing for the byproducts of
>life. Anyway, those expensive bits of evidence were negative.
Small point, but one I think worth mentioning: The Viking experiments
assumed organic life that used the same basic set of reactions as Earthbound
life, and would give off the same byproducts.. and come to think of it I
don't believe it checked for the byproducts of the biology of purely
chemosynthetic life, of the sort one gets around ocean-floor vents. [ Please
correct me if I'm wrong on this ] There were other experiments, Vishniac's
jars for example, that could have detected life in a less parochial manner,
which have not been run on Mars.
>Please don't be disappointed with the public. We recognize there is
>evidence of *something* and will wait for an explanation of just
>what it is.
It's either life or something extremely odd.
>I hope we don't blow a wad of valuable observational resource on
>a manned mission to gather up Mars rocks. That could kill off the
>innovative, unmanned observational projects in the works.
True.. but I don't think there's any time pressure on us, and there's no
reason not to do both eventually.
Emmet
--
Hello, can you help me ? I'm a spy.
David & Janice Hodghead
Matt Austern wrote:
>
> spatt...@wwdc.com (Steve Patterson) writes:
>
> > You are, of course, free to do so. However, I don't think that the evidence
> > is strong enough to support your thesis. As you'd noted in your article,
> > many species have stopped evolving and have continued on for several
> > million years; most notably sharks and certain insects. Also, in the great
> > majority of those species which are *still* evolving, there has been no
> > marked increase in cranial size nor in CNS tissue.
> >
> > hardly measures up. (Damn, I wish I hadn't sold those bio books, the ones
> > with the hard numbers in 'em...)
>
> living in the Age Of Man, but in the age of arthropods. Arthropods
> are fantastically successful by any standard, and none of them have
> terribly large brains.
Granted, its been over 30 years since I took a course on evolution in
college, but I do remember the term "cephalization" cropping up quite
frequently and with regard to most, if not all, branches of life. I
particularly remember mention of the giant squid. This would imply to me
that there must be at least some advantage to larger brain capacity vs.
body weight. On the other hand, tool using to the level of technology
homo sapiens has taken it may well be detrimental to our survival.
Janice Hodghead <rive...@telis.org>
Steve Patterson
In article <321983...@ozemail.com.au>, Chris Lawson <cl...@ozemail.com.au> says:
>
>Steve Patterson wrote:
>
>> In this rare instance, I must side with Robert. I'm afraid that our tendancy
>> to see intelligence as a superior survival characteristic is just our
>> native "plains-ape-with-big-brain" pride.
>
>continues, intelligence increases.
You are, of course, free to do so. However, I don't think that the evidence
is strong enough to support your thesis. As you'd noted in your article,
many species have stopped evolving and have continued on for several
million years; most notably sharks and certain insects. Also, in the great
majority of those species which are *still* evolving, there has been no
marked increase in cranial size nor in CNS tissue.
If we measure evolutionary success by percentage of biomass, then intelligence
hardly measures up. (Damn, I wish I hadn't sold those bio books, the ones
with the hard numbers in 'em...)
>I certainly believe that there *is* a survival advantage in
>intelligence. There are several "design flaws" in humans that seem to
>have evolved to accomodate giving birth to babies with enormous brains,
>and giving birth to them years before they're mature enough to care
>for themselves. If big brains conferred no advantage, none of these
>designs would have evolved.
Careful; you're edging into the classic "evolution by design" error. What
seems to have happened is that the adaptations necessary to allow larger
brain sizes haven't come at such a high cost to the species that it was
driven extinct. We can reliably draw no further conclusions from this
fact.
>
>> There is no identifiable driver that encourages intelligence in species; the
>> mesozoic has many wonderful examples of diversified ecosystems without the
>> slightest hint of an intelligent species.
>
>1. There's also no identifiable driver that encourages sexual
>differentiation.
Wrong. On the assumption that you mean sexual dimorphism, there are a few
drivers towards differentiation; mating rituals (tails, coxcombs, etc),
sexual division-of-labour (teats, pouches, manes), and at least one more
that my sinus-congested brain refuses to recall.
>2. The whole point of evolution is that it takes time for things to
>happen. You might as well say that feathers offer no survival value
>because there are no fossilised feathers from the Pre-Cambrian!
But feathers *have* continued on to many different species of birds.
Intelligence (at least, of the tool-making variety) has only decended to
a few hominids, only one of which still survives.
---
Scott Colvin Beeler
Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> writes:
>Scott Colvin Beeler wrote:
>>
>> So even though before the discovery I "believed" in life elsewhere,
>> now that significant evidence has been found, I am excited. And
>> I am dissappointed that lots of people aren't excited, because they
>> apparently don't realize that having evidence of something is important.
>
>Please don't be disappointed with the public. We recognize there is
>evidence of *something* and will wait for an explanation of just
>what it is.
OK, maybe "disappointed" was a little strong. But although the Mars
rock announcement hasn't been verified yet, it was still enough to get
me worked up.
>I hope we don't blow a wad of valuable observational resource on
>a manned mission to gather up Mars rocks. That could kill off the
>innovative, unmanned observational projects in the works.
Yeah, I agree with you. A manned mission would be great, but
we don't want to trash everything else to accomplish it. The Hubble
is actually starting to earn its keep, not to mention the Jupiter
probes and the upcoming Mars probes.
>Thanks for taking time to yammer with me on this topic.
Nice to know we could yammer out an agreement of sorts. :)
Scott
Leonard Erickson
Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> writes:
>> Or you could assume nothing and rely on the scientific method,
>> assuming only what you can prove reasonably. I'm quite willing
>> to admit that other systems may operate very similarly to ours
>> with similar results but we don't -know- that yet. We've barely
>> begun to detect planets!
>
> The scientific method begins with a hypothesis. I've stated mine
> and you've stated yours and now we run experiments to detect
> which is more accurate. Unfortunately, we neglected to give
> our lab folks the tools they need to find out. So I guess we can
> just sit and argue hypotheticals. That's what usenet is for. :-)
Sorry, but the scientific method starts with *data* (observations),
only *after* you have the data do you progress to the stage of trying
to come up with hypotheses that may explain it.
We lack the data to support your hypthesis. We know life exists on
Earth, and we *think* it once existed on Mars. We know that the sun is
*not* as typical as it could be. We *assume* that the Sun is typical,
but we really can't support that assumption.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
sha...@krypton.rain.com <--preferred
leo...@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort
Londo Mollari
Janice Hodghead <rive...@telis.org> wrote:
> Matt Austern wrote:
[snip]
> > One of my favorite lines from Stephen Jay Gould is that we aren't
> > living in the Age Of Man, but in the age of arthropods. Arthropods
> > are fantastically successful by any standard, and none of them have
> > terribly large brains.
Actually Gould is a bit guilty here of "anthropological" bias (okay
animal bias). We are in the Age of Prokaryotes. (Age of Bacteria
for those who have not studied biology).
> Granted, its been over 30 years since I took a course on evolution in
> college, but I do remember the term "cephalization" cropping up quite
> frequently and with regard to most, if not all, branches of life. I
> particularly remember mention of the giant squid. This would imply to me
> that there must be at least some advantage to larger brain capacity vs.
> body weight. On the other hand, tool using to the level of technology
> homo sapiens has taken it may well be detrimental to our survival.
I would every much doubt that increasing intellegence is a feature
of most evolutionary lines. Certainly of some, but that some is
a small minority.
Mike
--
"When I wrote that book [_Fahrenheit_451_], I was trying
to _prevent_ a future, and by god it's arrived..."
- Ray Bradbury on TV, VR, and the lack of reading today