The Drake Equation Revisited

[Moontanman]

Stars are big and hot and dangerous. Life is small and cool and molecular. You ought be able to do abiogenesis in any pot, once you have the right recipe. After all, it’s only the basic primordial soup you’re brewing there, waiting for those metabolisms to crystallize. I’ll very interested when you get to the part where your molecules invent the genetic alphabet.

 

What does this have to do with the Drake equation? The Drake equation assumes necessarily that abiogenesis is a ubiquitous process. I question that assumption.

 

You obviously do not have a clue as to what abiogenesis is or how it it thought to work. Again you are talking like a fundamentalist who thinks life is a on/off yes/no thing. I suggest reading a few recent books on the subject, "Life as We Do Not Know It" by Peter Ward would be a good place to start. You are the one harping on abiogenesis in the drake equation, to question that assumption you need more information than the average creationist web site provides.

[Larv]

You obviously do not have a clue as to what abiogenesis is or how it it thought to work.

Oh, I might have at least a clue.

 

Again you are talking like a fundamentalist who thinks life is a on/off yes/no thing. I suggest reading a few recent books on the subject, "Life as We Do Not Know It" by Peter Ward would be a good place to start. You are the one harping on abiogenesis in the drake equation, to question that assumption you need more information than the average creationist web site provides.

 

Yes, I have read Ward’s books. I noticed that in “Life as We Do Not Know It” he makes a key omission on page 96 when he explains away the emergence of a genetic code in “bag life” as merely perfunctory: “Eventually, a genetic code using nucleic acids comes from within the cells.” That’s it? My gosh, it’s that simple?

 

Then he goes on to speculate that genes came first, protein (enzymes) second, and cells third. That’s interesting. The only thing, though, is where the hell did those genes come from? Just out of nowhere? Just a happy coincidence of an emergent property that arrives pre-coded for instant application?

 

And, moontanman, you can dispense with those condescending remarks, and that creationist crap, too. I’m an untheist, through and through. (An untheist believes that it doesn’t matter if there is or isn’t a god.)

[Moontanman]

I am going to assume you really want to understand what abiogeneis is larv. If you read this link and all the side links it should give you some idea of why is it so unreasonable to think you should be able to pour ingredients into a pot and get life. More than likely several different processes came to gether at various times to produce the first self replicating molecules that lead to the first things that could be called alive.

 

 

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Moontanman]

Oh, I might have at least a clue.

 

 

 

Yes, I have read Ward’s books. I noticed that in “Life as We Do Not Know It” he makes a key omission on page 96 when he explains away the emergence of a genetic code in “bag life” as merely perfunctory: “Eventually, a genetic code using nucleic acids comes from within the cells.” That’s it? My gosh, it’s that simple?

 

Then he goes on to speculate that genes came first, protein (enzymes) second, and cells third. That’s interesting. The only thing, though, is where the hell did those genes come from? Just out of nowhere? Just a happy coincidence of an emergent property that arrives pre-coded for instant application?

 

And, moontanman, you can dispense with those condescending remarks, and that creationist crap, too. I’m an untheist, through and through. (An untheist believes that it doesn’t matter if there is or isn’t a god.)

 

Hey larv, when it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck I'm going to assume it has feathers and a beak. I figured you were just baiting me. Ward is just the start, it gives you some idea of just how complex the idea of abiogenesis really is and how unreasonable your remark of adding ingredients to a test tube and getting life really are. If you have a grasp of the concept you shouldn't make off hand remarks like that. it's the mantra of the creationists and doesn't deserve to be thrown around in a serious discussion. You take this serious and i will. you demean me and the ideas and I'll do the same to you. quid pro quo

[TheBigDog]

Hey larv, when it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck I'm going to assume it has feathers and a beak. I figured you were just baiting me. Ward is just the start, it gives you some idea of just how complex the idea of abiogenesis really is and how unreasonable your remark of adding ingredients to a test tube and getting life really are. If you have a grasp of the concept you shouldn't make off hand remarks like that. it's the mantra of the creationists and doesn't deserve to be thrown around in a serious discussion. You take this serious and i will. you demean me and the ideas and I'll do the same to you. quid pro quo

One of the beautiful things about this topic, Moon, is that it is a formula with speculative values plugged in. We can use our best logic and intuition to determine those values and come up with a speculative answer about a topic we will not live to find out the correct answer. I can appreciate Larv's position as being his, and I can appreciate yours as well. You have brought more than just layman's speculation in providing fruitful links to parallel topics and expanded the thinking of the concept, and I truly appreciate that. Don't let the difference of opinion get under your skin. :P

 

Bill

[prometheuspan]

the thing the drake equation fails to account for is motivation. Assuming that there are X number of civilizations in our galaxy, say 100, and say 5 of them have FTL...what is their motivation for contacting us?

 

This is the single largest loop hole. The truth is that any advanced civilization would not be interested in making contact with us for the reasons of our assorted primitiveness, orwellian civilization, and etc.