Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over time.
OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
RESPONSE: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of life.
Tan, Change; Stadler, Rob. The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check (pp. 187-189). Evorevo Books. Kindle Edition.
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 2:01:57 AM UTC+11, Öö Tiib wrote:life. And the gap is growing over time as we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over
On Saturday, 2 December 2023 at 06:26:56 UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
RESPONSE: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to the “gap.” The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact, the entirety of the origin of
Tan, Change; Stadler, Rob. The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check (pp. 187-189). Evorevo Books. Kindle Edition.
Gaps again ... zero alternative stories in that writing to be found.
His gaps are in clearly incorrect knowledge. How can be 493 genes theoretical
minimum? 2016, Craig Venter reported creation of Syn 3.0 that actually lives and
replicates and has 473 genes. Theoretical minimum is very likely with lot less.
Step 1: Demonstrate from science 'an ever-increasing “gap.”'
Step 2: Consider the God hypothesis.
MarkE wrote:
Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
The truth is: This is where we find evolution - in the gaps. The 00L and
the Cambrian explosion is _not_ where we find a "god", but rather this
is where we find evolution, which has been trying desperately for 150+
years to find non-existing evidence that closes these gaps.... It's
_AFTER_ these gaps, is where we find the results of "god's " work!.
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 09:16:59 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
MarkE wrote:Evolution isn't concerned with OOL. Perhaps OOL happened
Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequentlyThe truth is: This is where we find evolution - in the gaps. The 00L and >>> the Cambrian explosion is _not_ where we find a "god", but rather this
raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence,
especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just
because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we
have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
is where we find evolution, which has been trying desperately for 150+
years to find non-existing evidence that closes these gaps.... It's
_AFTER_ these gaps, is where we find the results of "god's " work!.
spontaneously here or elsewhere and migrated in or was altered by
whomever intelligent? It is irrelevant.
I realize that's the claim. However, there has been research and experimenting with chemicals for a century in the hopes of discovering
how life originated via some random, mindless, unguided natural
processes.
I'll bet the scientist engaged in this enterprise are dedicated evolutionist, themselves and you cannot justifiably argue the contrary.
So, technically it might not be part of evolution,
nevertheless, it's not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist
laboring in the field of OOL.
Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there could
be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
Fact is that life evolved here for
billions of years agonisingly slowly. Exactly as expected from so
primitive process. At some point it clearly had common to all survived
life ancestor as it is based on very narrow choice from apparently
available space of possible biochemistries and very narrow choice
of space of possible structural arrangements of that biochemistry.
Claiming that evolution is wrong because it does not explain origins
of life is like claiming that it is wrong because it does not explain
origins of speed of light and absolute zero temperature.
On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural >abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of >natural selection and other processes.
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
natural selection and other processes.
even posted it myself.
I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
do so.
On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it'sEvolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution! >>>
through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
natural selection and other processes.
even posted it myself.
I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
accidental panspermia.
--
I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
do so.
On 2023-12-04 18:54:51 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 09:16:59 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:I realize that's the claim. However, there has been research and
MarkE wrote:Evolution isn't concerned with OOL. Perhaps OOL happened
Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequently >>>>> raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence,The truth is: This is where we find evolution - in the gaps. The 00L and >>>> the Cambrian explosion is _not_ where we find a "god", but rather this >>>> is where we find evolution, which has been trying desperately for 150+ >>>> years to find non-existing evidence that closes these gaps.... It's
especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just >>>>> because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we >>>>> have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
_AFTER_ these gaps, is where we find the results of "god's " work!.
spontaneously here or elsewhere and migrated in or was altered by
whomever intelligent? It is irrelevant.
experimenting with chemicals for a century in the hopes of discovering
how life originated via some random, mindless, unguided natural
processes.
Evidence? I realize that you don't normally bother with evidence, but
it still would be nice to know where you got this incredibly
superficial account of origin-of-life resarch.
I'll bet the scientist engaged in this enterprise are dedicated
evolutionist, themselves and you cannot justifiably argue the contrary.
Try not to bet on things you know nothing about.
Try also to learn the difference between the origin of life and
evolution. Hint: natural selection is concerned to explain how life
evolved _after_ the origin. It says nothing (or almost nothing) about
what happened before that.
So, technically it might not be part of evolution,
Not technically, OK, but not anything.
nevertheless, it's not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist
laboring in the field of OOL.
How do you think you know that? Evidence? With suitable references.
Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there could
be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
That's a truism with no information content.
Fact is that life evolved here for
billions of years agonisingly slowly. Exactly as expected from so
primitive process. At some point it clearly had common to all survived
life ancestor as it is based on very narrow choice from apparently
available space of possible biochemistries and very narrow choice
of space of possible structural arrangements of that biochemistry.
Claiming that evolution is wrong because it does not explain origins
of life is like claiming that it is wrong because it does not explain
origins of speed of light and absolute zero temperature.
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
No evidence yet, I see. No evidence either for your claim that Piltdown
Man was ever a centre piece in theory of evolution. Can we take your
silence as an admission of dishonesty?
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 09:16:59 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
MarkE wrote:Evolution isn't concerned with OOL. Perhaps OOL happened
Here is one author's response to this objection, which is frequentlyThe truth is: This is where we find evolution - in the gaps. The 00L and >>> the Cambrian explosion is _not_ where we find a "god", but rather this
raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the scientific evidence,
especially for OOL, points instead to a "God of the growing gulf".
OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just
because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we
have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
is where we find evolution, which has been trying desperately for 150+
years to find non-existing evidence that closes these gaps.... It's
_AFTER_ these gaps, is where we find the results of "god's " work!.
spontaneously here or elsewhere and migrated in or was altered by
whomever intelligent? It is irrelevant.
I realize that's the claim. However, there has been research and experimenting with chemicals for a century in the hopes of discovering
how life originated via some random, mindless, unguided natural
processes. I'll bet the scientist engaged in this enterprise are
dedicated evolutionist, themselves and you cannot justifiably argue the contrary.
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0700
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:
[Accidental Panspermia]
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
On no evidence whatsoever, I favour the explanation that life started on
warm wet Mars, and seeded Earth soon after it had settled down to a more >hospitable place after the Moon was created.
Or maybe it started on Earth beforehand but Earth life got wiped out with
the big collision; though luckily there was a backup store of life on Mars
by then to transfer back when times were better.
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared inIt seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's >> >>>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of >> >>>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there >> >>>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution! >> >>>Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal >> >>> to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the >> >>> common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of >> >>> natural selection and other processes.
even posted it myself.
I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
accidental panspermia.
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
--
I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
do so.
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 10:57:29 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0700
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:
[Accidental Panspermia]
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
On no evidence whatsoever, I favour the explanation that life started on
warm wet Mars, and seeded Earth soon after it had settled down to a more
hospitable place after the Moon was created.
Or maybe it started on Earth beforehand but Earth life got wiped out with
the big collision; though luckily there was a backup store of life on Mars >> by then to transfer back when times were better.
Since you mention it, it's not clear to me how Mars could have evolved
life significantly before Earth.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 12/4/23 10:54 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 4 December 2023 at 09:16:59 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:I realize that's the claim. However, there has been research and
MarkE wrote:Evolution isn't concerned with OOL. Perhaps OOL happened
Here is one author's response to this objection, which isThe truth is: This is where we find evolution - in the gaps. The 00L >>>> and
frequently raised on TO. I've previously claimed that the
scientific evidence, especially for OOL, points instead to a "God >>>>> of the growing gulf".
OBJECTION: Your argument is a plea to the “God of the gaps.” Just >>>>> because science doesn’t have all the answers doesn’t mean that we >>>>> have to invoke God to fill the gaps.
the Cambrian explosion is _not_ where we find a "god", but rather this >>>> is where we find evolution, which has been trying desperately for 150+ >>>> years to find non-existing evidence that closes these gaps.... It's >>>> _AFTER_ these gaps, is where we find the results of "god's " work!. >>>>
spontaneously here or elsewhere and migrated in or was altered by
whomever intelligent? It is irrelevant.
experimenting with chemicals for a century in the hopes of discovering
how life originated via some random, mindless, unguided natural
processes. I'll bet the scientist engaged in this enterprise are
dedicated evolutionist, themselves and you cannot justifiably argue
the contrary.
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
Likewise, computer programming depends upon computers, which require
that the elements silicon, germanium, and others. The formation of
these elements requires certain conditions that stars go through. Consequently, one cannot become a competent computer programmer without first learning astrophysics.
Right?
I thought I already responded to this, but I cannot find it on TO. Ok,
to carry your logic further none of this would have happened had the big bang never happened.
On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0700
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:
[Accidental Panspermia]
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
On no evidence whatsoever, I favour the explanation that life started on
warm wet Mars, and seeded Earth soon after it had settled down to a more hospitable place after the Moon was created.
Or maybe it started on Earth beforehand but Earth life got wiped out with
the big collision; though luckily there was a backup store of life on Mars
by then to transfer back when times were better.
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0700
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:
[Accidental Panspermia]
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
On no evidence whatsoever, I favour the explanation that life started on
warm wet Mars, and seeded Earth soon after it had settled down to a more
hospitable place after the Moon was created.
Or maybe it started on Earth beforehand but Earth life got wiped out with
the big collision; though luckily there was a backup store of life on Mars >> by then to transfer back when times were better.
Poor logic. If life on Earth could have formed spontaneously
before being wiped out, restarting again is far more probable
that the extremely unlikely possibility
of spontaneous transfer from Mars.
The American civil war myth of a virgin girl having been impregnated
by a bullet that had passed through a soldiers balls
is extremely likely, by comparison,
(alas, busted)
Jan
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 6:42:00 AM UTC-8, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 10:57:29 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0700
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:
[Accidental Panspermia]
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
On no evidence whatsoever, I favour the explanation that life started on >warm wet Mars, and seeded Earth soon after it had settled down to a more >hospitable place after the Moon was created.
Or maybe it started on Earth beforehand but Earth life got wiped out with >the big collision; though luckily there was a backup store of life on Mars >by then to transfer back when times were better.Since you mention it, it's not clear to me how Mars could have evolved
life significantly before Earth.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledgeIt would be great to discover that Mars developed life of its own, and
even more interesting if it's still there, perhaps deep underground. Only
by examining its chemistry will we be able to see if it's us.
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 10:57:29 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John" <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0700
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:
[Accidental Panspermia]
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
On no evidence whatsoever, I favour the explanation that life started on >warm wet Mars, and seeded Earth soon after it had settled down to a more >hospitable place after the Moon was created.
Or maybe it started on Earth beforehand but Earth life got wiped out with >the big collision; though luckily there was a backup store of life on Mars >by then to transfer back when times were better.
*Excellent* unsupported conjecture(s)! :-)
Or how about this? IIRC solar radiance was much lower in the
"early days", say 2-3 BYa. So perhaps life started on Venus,
and only migrated to Earth when Venus became too hot? No
evidence whatsoever, of course, and I'm sure there are valid
reasons why it couldn't have happened that way, but those
are easily handwaved aside; simply check how Directed
Panspermia works.
It would be great to discover that Mars developed life of its own, andIndeed it would; I think some organic bits have been found in Antartic meteorites?
even more interesting if it's still there, perhaps deep underground. Only >> by examining its chemistry will we be able to see if it's us.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 12:12:01?PM UTC-8, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:02:54 -0700If anybody seeded us, it had to be Mars. Go Mars!
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 10:57:29 +0000, the following appeared inI reject your johnny-come-lately conjecture as clearly nonsense - Venus is >> downhill from Earth, life could only come from further out (Until the
talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John" <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0700*Excellent* unsupported conjecture(s)! :-)
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:
[Accidental Panspermia]
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
On no evidence whatsoever, I favour the explanation that life started on >> > >warm wet Mars, and seeded Earth soon after it had settled down to a more >> > >hospitable place after the Moon was created.
Or maybe it started on Earth beforehand but Earth life got wiped out with >> > >the big collision; though luckily there was a backup store of life on Mars
by then to transfer back when times were better.
Or how about this? IIRC solar radiance was much lower in the
"early days", say 2-3 BYa. So perhaps life started on Venus,
and only migrated to Earth when Venus became too hot? No
evidence whatsoever, of course, and I'm sure there are valid
reasons why it couldn't have happened that way, but those
are easily handwaved aside; simply check how Directed
Panspermia works.
Venusian invented spaceships, of course).
Support the Mars origin of life campaign! Send donations to...
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 14:38:38 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 12:12:01?PM UTC-8, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: >> On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:02:54 -0700
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:If anybody seeded us, it had to be Mars. Go Mars!
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 10:57:29 +0000, the following appeared inI reject your johnny-come-lately conjecture as clearly nonsense - Venus is >> downhill from Earth, life could only come from further out (Until the
talk.origins, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John" <[email protected]>:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0700*Excellent* unsupported conjecture(s)! :-)
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:
[Accidental Panspermia]
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
On no evidence whatsoever, I favour the explanation that life started on
warm wet Mars, and seeded Earth soon after it had settled down to a more
hospitable place after the Moon was created.
Or maybe it started on Earth beforehand but Earth life got wiped out with
the big collision; though luckily there was a backup store of life on Mars
by then to transfer back when times were better.
Or how about this? IIRC solar radiance was much lower in the
"early days", say 2-3 BYa. So perhaps life started on Venus,
and only migrated to Earth when Venus became too hot? No
evidence whatsoever, of course, and I'm sure there are valid
reasons why it couldn't have happened that way, but those
are easily handwaved aside; simply check how Directed
Panspermia works.
Venusian invented spaceships, of course).
Support the Mars origin of life campaign! Send donations to...
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
Pish and tosh! Mars, as god of war, was far less likely than
Venus, goddess of love, to have given life! Even the Romans
got that right!
So there!
On 2023-12-06 12:27:10 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
Kerr-Mudd, John <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0700
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:
[Accidental Panspermia]
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
On no evidence whatsoever, I favour the explanation that life started on >> warm wet Mars, and seeded Earth soon after it had settled down to a more >> hospitable place after the Moon was created.
Or maybe it started on Earth beforehand but Earth life got wiped out with >> the big collision; though luckily there was a backup store of life on Mars >> by then to transfer back when times were better.
Poor logic. If life on Earth could have formed spontaneously
before being wiped out, restarting again is far more probable
that the extremely unlikely possibility
of spontaneous transfer from Mars.
The American civil war myth of a virgin girl having been impregnated
by a bullet that had passed through a soldiers balls
is extremely likely, by comparison,
(alas, busted)
Jan
Alas indeed. I read about this many years ago (1969, probably, or thereabouts) in American Heritage, a magazine that my late first father-in-law suscribed to in our name. I found it quite plausible,
much more believable than that the Virgin Mary was impregnated by the
Angel Gabriel.
On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:Regardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared inIt seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's >>>> >>>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of >>>> >>>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there >>>> >>>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural >>>> >>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a >>>> >>> lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the >>>> >>> common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
natural selection and other processes.
even posted it myself.
I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
accidental panspermia.
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
--
I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
do so.
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
(1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of
civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
discussion.
As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
rigorous.
The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar
travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel
is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus
a paradox.
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson >>><[email protected]>:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:Regardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared inIt seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated >>>>> >>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural >>>>> >>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other >>>>> >>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a >>>>> >>> lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
natural selection and other processes.
even posted it myself.
I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
accidental panspermia.
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
--
I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
do so.
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
(1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of >>>civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
discussion.
As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
rigorous.
The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar
travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel
is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus
a paradox.
exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
IMHO, the full statement should be "If interstellar travel
is possible, and IF any civilization capable of so traveling
has the desire to do so, then they should be here at some
time during the lifetime of the galaxy". In this I see no
paradox, only a set of unknowns. And despite the fact that
our star system is only 1/3 the age of the universe, it may
be that early-population stars lacked some of the elements
required for life, which had to wait for the proper
environment, so "they've had plenty of time to get here" may
be a false assumption, and we're only just getting to the
point where a star-travelling civilization is possible. We
simply *don't now*.
While I suppose you could call the lack of desire. or a--
particular environmental restriction, a process which
inhibits the expansion, I don't believe that was part of the
assumption.
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:01:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson >>>><[email protected]>:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared inRegardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
talk.origins, posted by Ernest MajorIt seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated >>>>>> >>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural >>>>>> >>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other >>>>>> >>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
natural selection and other processes.
even posted it myself.
I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot >>>>>> >accidental panspermia.
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
--
I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
do so.
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
(1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of >>>>civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
discussion.
As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
rigorous.
The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar
travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel
is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus
a paradox.
exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
My description above isn't meant to be exhaustive. But since you
mention it, a desire for interstellar travel is a consequence of a
common evolutionary strategy to expand and overcome, one not limited
to humans.
--IMHO, the full statement should be "If interstellar travel
is possible, and IF any civilization capable of so traveling
has the desire to do so, then they should be here at some
time during the lifetime of the galaxy". In this I see no
paradox, only a set of unknowns. And despite the fact that
our star system is only 1/3 the age of the universe, it may
be that early-population stars lacked some of the elements
required for life, which had to wait for the proper
environment, so "they've had plenty of time to get here" may
be a false assumption, and we're only just getting to the
point where a star-travelling civilization is possible. We
simply *don't now*.
While I suppose you could call the lack of desire. or a
particular environmental restriction, a process which
inhibits the expansion, I don't believe that was part of the
assumption.
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:01:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson >>>><[email protected]>:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared inRegardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
talk.origins, posted by Ernest MajorIt seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated >>>>>> >>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural >>>>>> >>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other >>>>>> >>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
natural selection and other processes.
even posted it myself.
I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot >>>>>> >accidental panspermia.
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
--
I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
do so.
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
(1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of >>>>civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
discussion.
As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
rigorous.
The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar
travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel
is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus
a paradox.
exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
My description above isn't meant to be exhaustive. But since you
mention it, a desire for interstellar travel is a consequence of a
common evolutionary strategy to expand and overcome, one not limited
to humans.
--IMHO, the full statement should be "If interstellar travel
is possible, and IF any civilization capable of so traveling
has the desire to do so, then they should be here at some
time during the lifetime of the galaxy". In this I see no
paradox, only a set of unknowns. And despite the fact that
our star system is only 1/3 the age of the universe, it may
be that early-population stars lacked some of the elements
required for life, which had to wait for the proper
environment, so "they've had plenty of time to get here" may
be a false assumption, and we're only just getting to the
point where a star-travelling civilization is possible. We
simply *don't now*.
While I suppose you could call the lack of desire. or a
particular environmental restriction, a process which
inhibits the expansion, I don't believe that was part of the
assumption.
On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:19:18 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
Yet another post which I noticed failed to appear. More
irony WRT CW...
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:01:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Those are assumptions. Change "is a strategy" to "is usually
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared inRegardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
talk.origins, posted by Ernest MajorIt seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in >>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated >>>>>>>>>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural >>>>>>>>>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct >>>>>>>>>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other >>>>>>>>>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
natural selection and other processes.
even posted it myself.
I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot >>>>>>>> accidental panspermia.
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
--
I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted, >>>>>>>>> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They >>>>>>>>> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to >>>>>>>>> do so.
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
(1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of
civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
discussion.
As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
rigorous.
The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar
travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel >>>> is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus >>>> a paradox.
exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
My description above isn't meant to be exhaustive. But since you
mention it, a desire for interstellar travel is a consequence of a
common evolutionary strategy to expand and overcome, one not limited
to humans.
a strategy among known species" and change "one not limited
to humans" to "which may be not limited to humans" and I'll
accept it. Bottom line: We have a sample of *one* ecology,
and no knowledge of any other. Ignorance doesn't confer
surety.
On 12/8/23 10:22 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:19:18 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
Yet another post which I noticed failed to appear. More
irony WRT CW...
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:01:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Those are assumptions. Change "is a strategy" to "is usually
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared inRegardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
talk.origins, posted by Ernest MajorIt seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in >>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated >>>>>>>>>>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural >>>>>>>>>>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct >>>>>>>>>>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other >>>>>>>>>>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
natural selection and other processes.
even posted it myself.
I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot >>>>>>>>> accidental panspermia.
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
--
I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted, >>>>>>>>>> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They >>>>>>>>>> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to >>>>>>>>>> do so.
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
(1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of
civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
discussion.
As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
rigorous.
The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar
travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel >>>>> is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus >>>>> a paradox.
exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
My description above isn't meant to be exhaustive. But since you
mention it, a desire for interstellar travel is a consequence of a
common evolutionary strategy to expand and overcome, one not limited
to humans.
a strategy among known species" and change "one not limited
to humans" to "which may be not limited to humans" and I'll
accept it. Bottom line: We have a sample of *one* ecology,
and no knowledge of any other. Ignorance doesn't confer
surety.
Unfortunately, Ignorance all to often *does* confer surety. It does not >confer trustworthiness nor justify surety.
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 08:24:23 -0800, Mark Isaak ><[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/8/23 10:22 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:19:18 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
Yet another post which I noticed failed to appear. More
irony WRT CW...
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:01:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Those are assumptions. Change "is a strategy" to "is usually
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<[email protected]>:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared in >>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest MajorRegardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:It seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in >>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've >>>>>>>>>>> even posted it myself.
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated >>>>>>>>>>>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct >>>>>>>>>>>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other >>>>>>>>>>>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
natural selection and other processes.
I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot >>>>>>>>>> accidental panspermia.
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia >>>>>>>>> in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of >>>>>>>>> the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the >>>>>>>>> Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
--
I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted, >>>>>>>>>>> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by >>>>>>>>>>> anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They >>>>>>>>>>> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to >>>>>>>>>>> do so.
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question. >>>>>>>>
(1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of
civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
discussion.
As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
rigorous.
The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar >>>>>> travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel >>>>>> is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus >>>>>> a paradox.
exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
My description above isn't meant to be exhaustive. But since you
mention it, a desire for interstellar travel is a consequence of a
common evolutionary strategy to expand and overcome, one not limited
to humans.
a strategy among known species" and change "one not limited
to humans" to "which may be not limited to humans" and I'll
accept it. Bottom line: We have a sample of *one* ecology,
and no knowledge of any other. Ignorance doesn't confer
surety.
Unfortunately, Ignorance all to often *does* confer surety. It does not >>confer trustworthiness nor justify surety.
Assertion of ignorance where it does not exist illustrates a lack of >trustworthiness/surety.
On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:58:53 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:19:18 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:01:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]>Those are assumptions. Change "is a strategy" to "is usually
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:
On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote:OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson >>>>>><[email protected]>:
On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared inRegardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
talk.origins, posted by Ernest MajorIt seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in >>>>>>>> >> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated >>>>>>>> >>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct >>>>>>>> >>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other >>>>>>>> >>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
natural selection and other processes.
even posted it myself.
I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot >>>>>>>> >accidental panspermia.
Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
--
I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted, >>>>>>>> >> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They >>>>>>>> >> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to >>>>>>>> >> do so.
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
(1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero >>>>>>evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of >>>>>>civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
discussion.
As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from >>>>>>rigorous.
The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation >>>>>which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar >>>>>travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a >>>>>certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel >>>>>is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus >>>>>a paradox.
exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
My description above isn't meant to be exhaustive. But since you
mention it, a desire for interstellar travel is a consequence of a
common evolutionary strategy to expand and overcome, one not limited
to humans.
a strategy among known species" and change "one not limited
to humans" to "which may be not limited to humans" and I'll
accept it. Bottom line: We have a sample of *one* ecology,
and no knowledge of any other. Ignorance doesn't confer
surety.
We know for a fact the strategy to expand and overcome is not limited
to humans. There are many other species besides humans, from bacteria
to chimpanzee, which are observed to practice it. Your expressed
bottom line is erroneous.
--IMHO, the full statement should be "If interstellar travel
is possible, and IF any civilization capable of so traveling
has the desire to do so, then they should be here at some
time during the lifetime of the galaxy". In this I see no
paradox, only a set of unknowns. And despite the fact that
our star system is only 1/3 the age of the universe, it may
be that early-population stars lacked some of the elements
required for life, which had to wait for the proper
environment, so "they've had plenty of time to get here" may
be a false assumption, and we're only just getting to the
point where a star-travelling civilization is possible. We
simply *don't now*.
While I suppose you could call the lack of desire. or a
particular environmental restriction, a process which
inhibits the expansion, I don't believe that was part of the >>>>assumption.
The thing is, the theory of evolution itself does not specify whether or
not God exists, as that would be a theological, not scientific,
question. I was at the Zhejiang Natural History Museum in Hangzhou a few
days ago, and a sign claimed that biological life was definitely not the product of God, but of evolution. I find that statement very biased and
not neutral. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no evidence for or against the existence of God, so it is perfectly fine to believe either way while accepting the scientific consensus on evolution.
The thing is, the theory of evolution itself does not specify whether or
not God exists, as that would be a theological, not scientific,
question. I was at the Zhejiang Natural History Museum in Hangzhou a few
days ago, and a sign claimed that biological life was definitely not the >product of God, but of evolution. I find that statement very biased and
not neutral. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no >evidence for or against the existence of God, so it is perfectly fine to >believe either way while accepting the scientific consensus on evolution.
On 12/18/23 12:53 AM, F�lix An wrote:
[...]
The thing is, the theory of evolution itself does not specify whether or not God exists, as that would be a theological, not scientific,
question. I was at the Zhejiang Natural History Museum in Hangzhou a few days ago, and a sign claimed that biological life was definitely not the product of God, but of evolution. I find that statement very biased and
not neutral. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no evidence for or against the existence of God, so it is perfectly fine to believe either way while accepting the scientific consensus on evolution.
Part of the problem with that sign is that there is no good definition
of God.
Sure, certain gods can be ruled out; it is probably safe to say
that there are no superpowerful humanoid beings living at the summit of
Mount Olympus, for example. But ideas of god vary widely, and some are
so nebulous that they could apply to practically anything. No doubt
there are people who believe that evolution itself is part of God. And
nobody can make a case that they are wrong.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 714 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 136:24:23 |
| Calls: | 12,087 |
| Files: | 14,997 |
| Messages: | 6,517,376 |