RIP Allan SandageFollow

It's definitely one-sided, but still entertaining.

You are amazing. The fact that you function on a high enough level to operate a computer when you're obviously severely mentally retarded gives hope to legions of people wearing football helmets and boxer shorts looking out the screen door at grandma's house.

You can assume the correctness of one theory over another by observing an effect common to both all you like, it won't make you right and you're still an ignorant twat.

Nupe, haven't heard of it. I'll be sure to stay tuned should I run across it.



We'll just have to disagree on that. The actual rate of observed life given how pitifully small our observation rate is doesn't tell much. However, if you don't think that evolution is bunk, then it's borderline crazy to think that it hasn't happened elsewhere and many millenia sooner considering we've already identified potentially life-sustaining bodies and haven't even scratched the tiniest speck of the surface.

Granted this tends to assume some statistical normality about the universe that has yet to be substantiated, but if that's not good enough, then lots of science isn't, including evolution.

It's fine to lean towards ours being the only civilization relevant to our planet, but when you say, "We have no way of knowing," you still have to acknowledge that you're saying a 99% likelihood is just as plausible as a 1% likelihood. It then follows that there's at least no reason to dismiss it as ridiculous.

It is the hypothesis which has made the most accurate predictions so far. I don't see why you can't seem to comprehend this. This is how science works.

The original "story of creation" leaves much to the imagination itself. It isn't biblical, but the main scriptures would be in the book of Moses. The statement of fossils would come from Joseph Smith, fastest google search would be from this quote (as I heard this off hand from someone who is well versed):
"our planet was made up of the fragments of a planet which previously existed; some mighty convulsions disrupted that creation and made it desolate. Both its animal and vegetable life forms were destroyed" (Gospel and Man's Relationship to Diety).

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. (Moses 1:33-35, 38)

The question of god's timeline doesn't really have to do with the order so much as the timing of things we find today. How old the universe is, how long it took him to actually make the earth, what was used to make the earth.

Edited, Dec 2nd 2010 1:53am by manicshock

Off of Earth? No, we don't. We have places where we think it's possible it could have happened or places where we think it might have happened way back in the past, but we have no strong evidence that it actually did happen. The fact that the universe is a big place is meaningless -- we could be the one unique blue speck of sand on an otherwise brown beach. The simple fact is that we have no idea yet.


Not remotely. You don't decide the probability based on what you wish was true, you base it on what evidence you actually have. So far, the evidence of extraterrestrial life we've found -- advanced or microbial, living or fossilized -- is nil.

But there is. Right now, as we know it, Earth is the only place you find life. That's it. Once we find life (alive or dead) somewhere else then all that changes. As is, we haven't done so. There's nothing magical about being large.


Likewise. You're just over enthusiastic about it. Rare events are only "rare" compared to "common" events. From what limited data we've gathered from other celestial bodies, not having life is normal. The moon doesn't. Mars doesn't. Venus, Jupiter, Io, Ceres, etc etc all don't have life (that we've found). "Normality", so far, is not to have life. Until we have some more examples of bodies with life, you can't say that it must be true because it's "normal".


We have a wealth of data by which to build a very solid theory of macro-evolution. Furthermore, we're explaining something that has already happened -- life has provably been on this planet for billions of years, the only question is how it got here. "Here is a fish. Where did it come from? Let's trace it backwards and try and find out." The case for extraterrestrial life is all about hypotheticals and things we think/hope/wish might be true even if we have no evidence of them even existing yet. "Is there a fish somewhere in space? I dunno, but space is really big so I bet it must be true."

I don't even disagree with the possibility of life out there. I think it's worth looking for in some intelligent fashion such as locating planets that have/had water. I do think that people who say "But it's so big! So of course there must be!" are approaching it with the same logic as sailors who assumed the oceans must be filled with sea dragons and kraken because it's just so large and open and deep.

Intelligent Design theories (which was the start of this jaunt) not only assumes sea dragons but assumes sea dragons who are smart and can travel through space from galaxy to galaxy and who run around planting microbial life forms (or full grown zebras depending on your flavor of "theory") on distant worlds based on the evidence that... well, based on no evidence really but at least they don't have to say "God".

They'd be better off just calling it God and not embarrassing themselves.

Edited, Dec 3rd 2010 8:18am by Jophiel

We have inconclusive data that there may be other worlds that could maybe possibly support life if life had ever formed there. We have no evidence that life actually has formed in any of those places.

You might be right there. Last I heard was more of a "maybe sort of but probably not but at least it's worth looking at". As in it was more of a lead for finding intelligent places to look than evidence in of itself, much like discoveries of water say "Hey, you should look here before looking at that completely inhospitable place" and not "This is where the alien life all hangs out". But I also haven't followed it in any great depth.

Edited, Dec 3rd 2010 11:50am by Jophiel

For as its described now and for all its evidence, intelligent alien life scurrying around planting microbes is "magic".


Again, not remotely the same thing. We have a shit ton of data which supports macroevolution. We have little 'evidence' supporting alien life besides "Gee, sure is a lot of sky out there."

You're at your village with a pond brimming with fish. You go out past the village and find a scorched wasteland. Eventually you come across something that could have maybe once been a basin but is now a shallow dusty depression that quite probably never held water at all. Further out, you find a flat expanse of salt-land,totally inhospitable to life, much less fish. Past that is a pile of iron slag and past that something that you think might in fact be another pond from a distance. Then you get closer and find a small "sea" of wet silt covered with a glistening poisonous gas. You gaze out into the far horizon, convinced that there must be more ponds like yours because... there's a whole lot of land out there.

Analogies are fun!


I don't think you're actually being serious at this point. Or maybe you are but I don't have the enthusiasm to take another trip down the evolution train tracks this soon after the last trip.

Ok, fair enough-- I'll just take that as a "no." And that's where we'll have to differ. Either way, you haven't adequately defended the assertion that one is patently more ridiculous than the other.



I'm quite serious, and I'm pretty confident that I know how close we've come to substantiating macro-evolution (not very). But maybe you know something I don't, so whenever you muster up the enthusiasm, please do enlighten me.

Nor have you made any sort of convincing argument so I'm cool with that.

Likewise.

Heh.

Also, +1

Uhh, you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but in the cases of macroevolution that have been observed, it's been entirely debatable if these were changes that were "permissible" within the existing genetic structure. i.e., yes, we have observed macroevolution (technically), but the evidence for macroevolution of anything other than a very closely related species (a genus, family, order, class, phylum or kingdom) is very weak, and far from conclusively points to one animal being able to turn into another, even over a series of macroevolutions. I have friends who study evolutionary biology whom I've discussed this with at length, and they are very reticent to admit that the incidents cited in that article are macroevolution observed on the level we are actually discussing.



Considering that (1) is more like "essentially a guarantee" and that (2) is probably dependent on little else than the planet being a couple billion years older than us, "a snowflake's chance in hell" is the definition of an uneducated guess. We can forget about (3) entirely, since any guess you make about it is predicated entirely on your limited sociological point of reference. What if only two people survived an exodus to our planet? There's just not even any point in speculating it, let alone trying to account for it.

Am I saying that it's likely? Not really. I'm saying that even if it's incredibly rare, it could still occur a billion times. You can't definitively say that something is unlikely when you don't even have a clue how big the population you're studying is, and considering we've only even identified a few hundred planets of what could easily be billions or greater, it's incredibly naive to take a de facto stand that our planet is special.

Yeah. Except no.

Yep. They know more about it than us and you've talked to them therefore you're absolutely correct. Sorry to say, but if your friends have gotten to the graduate level of evolutionary biology and don't think there's enough evidence to conclusively point to macroevolution, they're likely to be morons. This is beside the point that you were challenged with data and replied with an argument from authority. I normally try to take the sympathetic position on these scientific threads, but you're being an cnut.

If you're going to make lazy unsubstantiated claims that you can't back up except in varying versions of "But I bet it's true 'cause space is big!" then why are you bothering?


I said exactly what I believe -- we don't have anywhere near the amount of evidence to form a belief in life on other planets except as wishful thinking. Saying "But it's big! Really big!" doesn't make it "essentially a guarantee". You haven't said anything yet more convincing than that you really, really think it must be true. Given that you're the one making the statement that it's "essentially a guarantee", perhaps you should be more worried about backing that up and showing that you're right instead of insisting that I prove you wrong.

You say that but I've yet to see anything different.


Apparently the meaning of "essentially a guarantee" has changed since last I checked. Or are you relying on "essentially" to be your weasel word. "I only said essentially a guarantee!"


I shouldn't be sure that I'm right about a lack of evidence making life on other planets "essentially a guarantee"? Yeah, I'm feeling okay about that claim especially given the contradictory "evidence" presented thus far.


Aside from the lack of any evidence to base an "extrapolation" on besides "But it's really big!", you mean.

Yeah. Wishful thinking. But I do admit that one uses bigger words so I guess it sounds like it might be more true provided you don't think about it.

Edited, Dec 6th 2010 1:34am by Jophiel

Don't pretend like the "essentially a guarantee" comment was pertinent to our discussion. I was talking specifically about microbial life with that comment, and I made that comment later and out of context to the discussion we were having. This debate hasn't fundamentally changed in the slightest since that comment.



We have sufficient evidence for inferential extrapolation-- we have US, and we have our observation rate. Currently, at best we can conclude that life exists on 1 out of roughly 400 planets observed out of roughly an extrapolated ~1 billion unobserved planets (based on stars:planets). Because we have yet to observe a statistically significant sample of subjects, inference is the only tool we have to rely on. Essentially, at this point we have more reason to believe that 1/1000 planets have life on them than to believe that NO other planets have life on them. That's not tautology, unless you think that inferential extrapolation is tautological. If you'd like to argue that point, I'd welcome the discussion.



His assertion, if I understood it correctly, was that evidence pointed to it not being the case, which is a claim that can really only be made with regards to an assumption like normality where we don't have nearly enough data to employ a test of normality. However, if we were to extrapolate data to assume normality, it would be more likely that there were life elsewhere than not.

This confusion about me saying that it is "nearly certain" should be clarified. I'm not actually saying that, and my statement was outside of the current context of the discussion. Shinta said that the probability of life elsewhere (which I took to include the simplest life) was enough to entertain reasonable doubt, and I replied that it was "more like" essentially certain. So we can quibble about it or suspect me of backpedaling, but my intention was not to express that the probability of life was =.999999999, but to say that reasonable doubt (which could be =.05 for all I know) is less like the actual likelihood than .9999999 is. e.g., if it's safer to guess a likelihood of something like .7.

As for Drake's equation, no, though that looks like it has some fundamental similarities. I just made a cursory glance of the wiki on it, but it doesn't factor in certain pertinent data and seems to ignore statistical normality more or less completely. It could probably be adapted easily enough to express something with actual substance though. I would agree that it relies on too many unknown data points to be at all useful. You can only extrapolate so far-- the more you extrapolate on extrapolated data, the weaker your case, though you can still have a decent one with prominently extrapolated figures (and in most cases in the natural world where the data is known, it does in fact work). That equation starts from one data point (which is smaller than the figure you would use for the purposes of our discussion) and extrapolates everything else. I wouldn't say that it's totally useless, but practically useless.

Wow, that's some pretty frantic backpedaling there. So you're making statements and then throwing a fit when I call you on them and then refusing to back them up, saying "It's not important! Look at this other argument!"?

Oh, hi Gbaji.


That is completely meaningless.


No, we don't.

Go ahead and keep bitching that I'm not fleshing out an argument to "But it's really big" well enough for you. Or pretending that what you said was anything more substantial than saying "It's really big".

Damn, I was holding off on returning to this thread thinking that I'd have more time to adequately address arguments later, and instead I find nothing but a bunch of non-arguments.



Then please accept my invitation to correct me: Has macroevolution beyond speciation been adequately substantiated or is it still theoretical? And I'll be sure to extend your invitation to have my friends suck your balls should you demonstrate them to be wrong.

And don't misunderstand me: I think it's foolhardy not to subscribe to macroevolution as the explanation for earth's biodiversity. I'm just under the strong impression that we haven't observed it on the level relevant to this discussion.



It was a miscommunication that was deservedly clarified, and nothing else. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're genuinely misunderstanding me, and not doing it on purpose.

My essential argument hasn't changed. Given the naturally occurring rate of the building blocks of life, the probability of those being present individually (which itself is relatively high), we can extrapolate an educated guess at the probability of them occurring together. Since we can further extrapolate that there are probably trillions of planets (or more), we can ultimately guess that there could likely be life-sustaining planets in this galaxy alone, nevermind the billions of others. As I alluded to before, the odds of being an outlier are rare. Normality is generally the default position of the natural sciences, not freak accidents.

I don't know, I'm not an astrophysicist or anything, but people like Frank Wilczek and Stephen Hawking throw their weight behind it and it makes perfect sense to me. I didn't even pick it up from anyone else; just pieced it together from the evidence and methods I know of. Edification of authority maybe, but until I hear better arguments than "we haven't seen it so we don't know," I guess I'll just respond with snarky bullsh*t like everyone else.