TeleMad Posted June 25, 2004 Report Posted June 25, 2004 The Drake equation (also known as the Green Bank equation) is a famous result in the speculative fields of xenobiology and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. This equation was devised by Dr. Frank Drake in the 1960s in an attempt to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy with which we might come in contact. The main purpose of the equation is to allow scientists to quantify the uncertainty of the factors which determine the number of extraterrestrial civilizations. The Drake equation is closely related to the Fermi paradox. The Drake equation states that N = R* × fp × ne × fl × fi × fc × L … Considerable disagreement on the values of most of these parameters exists, … What evidence is currently visible to humanity suggests that fl is very high; life on Earth appears to have begun almost immediately after conditions arrived in which it was possible, suggesting that abiogenesis is relatively "easy" once conditions are right. But this evidence is limited in scope, and so this term remains in considerable dispute. … fi, fc, and L are obviously little more than guesses. … Other assumptions give values of N that are << 1, in accord with the observable evidence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) [q/] Quote
Freethinker Posted June 25, 2004 Report Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by: TeleMadFor those interested in the opposing viewpoint, there's "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe".Hahahaha, Oh this is almost TOO GOOD! I figured that we would find, yet again, that Telemeds was going to argue with himself. We've seen it twice in the last couple posts already. Remember how his big proof was the BIG SCARY numbers involved with the probablity of RNA abiogenesis and thus we would not find LIFE, ofcourse ignoring OUR existence, which later became, would not find life ELSEWHERE.... Again, because of a lack of abiogenesis for RNA. So now he gives us the opposing viewpointand even gives a source to check out. Naturally this source would validate his PROOF that the chance of RNA coming thru abiogenesis is so extreme it would never happen! And so what does the first review of his suggested book say? Editorial ReviewsRare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the UniverseAmazon.com"Do you feel lucky? Well do ya?" asked Dirty Harry. Paleontologist Peter Ward and astronomer Donald Brownlee think all of us should feel lucky. Their rare Earth hypothesis predicts that while simple, microbial life will be very widespread in the universe,http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0387987010/002-5203077-3804813?v=glance http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0387987010/002-5203077-3804813?v=glance You know "simple, microbial life" which of course would REQUIRE RNA as a precursor. If you have actually read EITHER of these books, and you've so badly missed their contents, I suggest you find simpler material to read. And for the record, I often read books that come from multiple sides of an issue. In this case, just as with Probability 1, there were reviewers that disagreed with the premise and even basic approach this book takes. Further it is even mentioned that THIS approach is the less popular one. What we have not seen here yet from Telemat is specific examples of where Probablity 1 is WRONG. Ya lots of rambling as random nuerons fire, lots of accusations of what is wrong with the book. But not anything laid out for examination and review. Oh ya, the RNA thing. But that he disproved with his own the opposing viewpointAnd finally, the ultimate outcome of Probablity 1 only needs ONE other intellegent life in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE for it to be correct. Quote
Freethinker Posted June 25, 2004 Report Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by: TeleMadNo, you show us where I said you said exactly that! I didn’t. I'm sorry. I can't even make sense out of what you post anymore. I find no value to this nonsense. If you didn't like Probablity 1, OK. But I see no need to argue with you anymore. Quote
TeleMad Posted June 25, 2004 Report Posted June 25, 2004 FreeThinker: Naturally this source would validate his PROOF that the chance of RNA coming thru abiogenesis is so extreme it would never happen! Nope, I didn’t say that at all about the book, now did I. What discussion are YOU involved in? The book argues that intelligent life is extremely rare in the Universe, or possibly unique to Earth. ”If it is found to be correct, however, the Rare Earth Hypothesis will reverse that decentering trend. What if the Earth, with its cargo of advanced animals, is virtually unique in this quadrant of the galaxy – the most divderse planet, say, in the nearest 10,000 light-years? What if it is utterly unique: the only planet with animals in this galaxy or even in the visible Universe, a bastion of animal amid a sea of microbe-infested worlds?” (Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, Peter D Ward & Donald Brownlee, Copernicus, 2000, page xxiv) ”In the process, we learn that, while microbial life may well be more prevalent throughout the Universe than previously believed, the conditions necessary for the evolution and survival of higher life – and here the authors consider everything from DNA to plate tectonics to the role of our Moon – are so complex and precarious that they are unlikely to arise many other places, if at all.” (Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, Peter D Ward & Donald Brownlee, Copernicus, 2000, inside front jacket) Note the difference. The book you (FreeThinker) reference says the probability of other intelligent life in the Universe existing is 1 – ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. These authors say that IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS NO OTHER INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE. Sounds like an opposing viewpoint to me. FreeThinker: If you have actually read EITHER of these books… I have read the Rare Earth book, but that was years ago. FreeThinker: What we have not seen here yet from Telemat is specific examples of where Probablity 1 is WRONG. What we have not seen here yet from FreeThinker is specific evidence that Probablity 1 is RIGHT. FreeThinker: Oh ya, the RNA thing. But that he disproved with his own Not in the least. And you apparently are ignorant as to what PROOF or DISPROOF requires in science. FreeThinker: And finally, the ultimate outcome of Probablity 1 only needs ONE other intellegent life in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE for it to be correct. Yes, it REQUIRES AT LEAST one other intelligent life in the Universe…and we KNOW OF NONE! There can be NO PROOF in the book that other intelligent life MUST exist in the Universe. There can be only "speculation" based on the values that author chose to assign to the variables because he assumed they were accurate. Quote
TeleMad Posted June 25, 2004 Report Posted June 25, 2004 TeleMad: No, you show us where I said you said exactly that! I didn’t. FreeThinker: I'm sorry. I can't even make sense out of what you post anymore. It's called English...try learning it. FreeThinker: I find no value to this nonsense. If you didn't like Probablity 1, OK. But I see no need to argue with you anymore I accept your resignation. Quote
TeleMad Posted June 25, 2004 Report Posted June 25, 2004 Before squashing more of FreeThinker’s BS, I thought I’d point out what a mature person he’s been throughout… FreeThinker: Ah. TeleMAD is living up to his name and reputation. Arguing with himself. FreeThinker: Let's see if you can join OUR discussion, instead the one you seem to be having with YOURSELF. … Or will you just show us all that it was YOURSELF that you are arguing with? The option being that you just LIE about what I say and PRETEND I said it. FreeThinker: Not to be outdone, by HIMSELF! Telemud invents a SECOND argument between himself and... well... himself! FreeThinker: I'll try to lay this out slowly for you. FreeThinker: 1) you started your internal argument of rambling about RNA and how BIG and SCARY the numbers involving it's abiogenesis probability are! OOOOOOOOOoooooooo! 2) NOTHING in that RNA rambling … FreeThinker: Hahahaha, Oh this is almost TOO GOOD! I figured that we would find, yet again, that Telemeds was going to argue with himself. We've seen it twice in the last couple posts already. Remember how his big proof was the BIG SCARY numbers involved with the probablity of RNA abiogenesis and thus we would not find LIFE, ofcourse ignoring OUR existence, which later became, would not find life ELSEWHERE… FreeThinker: If you have actually read EITHER of these books, and you've so badly missed their contents, I suggest you find simpler material to read. FreeThinker: I'm sorry. I can't even make sense out of what you post anymore. Quote
TeleMad Posted June 25, 2004 Report Posted June 25, 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------FreeThinker: And "fear of big numbers" never impresses me as a disproof to things that HAVE HAPPENED.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------TeleMad: LOL! By all means FreeThink, please demonstrate to all of us that intelligent life has arisen elsewhere in the Universe! Go ahead, back up your ridiculous claim of things we supposedly know actually HAVE HAPPENED.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------FreeThinker: I'll try to lay this out slowly for you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No need to…I’m right and you’re wrong. It is I who has to lay it out slowly for you. I will leave your childish remarks in just to emphasis how you debate. FreeThinker: 1) you started your internal argument of rambling about RNA and how BIG and SCARY the numbers involving it's abiogenesis probability are! OOOOOOOOOoooooooo! I presented numbers based on the closest thing to an RNA replicase reached by directed evolution to date, and used them in further “back of the envelope” calculations. If you don’t like the numbers, that’s your problem. FreeThinker: 2) NOTHING in that RNA rambling mentions life ELSEWHERE. Just the probablity of RNA thru abiogenesis. Wrong. See, you aren’t paying attention. Here, look again what I said at the end of that paragraph. TeleMad: Now plug that number into Drake's equation and see if the probability still comes out to 1! Do you know what the Drake equation attempts to calculate? Here’s a clue, it’s not the probability of life arising here on Earth. You’re wrong. Sorry, that’s the fact. FreeThinker: 3) My mistake was in interupting your attempt at internal coherent thought. Wrong Your mistake was not understanding what I said. Guess whose to blame for that? YOU. FreeThinker: I commented that regardless of the % of probability, life HAS HAPPENED. Wrong That is NOT what you said. Had you actually said that, I would not have replied as I did. FreeThinker: 4) WE are that life. Or are you going to waste our time arguing that we are not alive? No, I’ll just point out that you are the one who is wrong here. FreeThinker: 5) YOU reply --------------------------------------------------------------------------------demonstrate to all of us that intelligent life has arisen elsewhere in the Universe!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ??? Thats was NOT included ANYWHERE in your 1st RNA yada yada. Sure it is, by my last sentence in my paragraph about plugging in the “RNA number” into the Drake equation. FreeThinker: You must have been having THAT part of the argument only in your head. Nope, it was there for anyone who can read and understand English. FreeThinker: Let us all know when you want to DISCUSS things with US, not just argue in your own head. Oh, I have been. You let us all know when you can read and understand English. Quote
Uncle Martin Posted June 25, 2004 Report Posted June 25, 2004 Gentlemen, This thread is beginning to look very similar to one that was locked recently. For the same "I'm right and you're wrong" incoherent ramblings. Is it not possible that when debating the probability of ETI there can be no right or wrong? Two knowledgeable individuals as you should be able to come to some conlusion or at least agree that you disagree. This argument is getting very personal considering you're basically reviewing two books with differing views. I've read through this thread and the problem is once again semantics and misunderstanding. Plus a generous dose of pride. Quote
Freethinker Posted June 25, 2004 Report Posted June 25, 2004 Originally posted by: Uncle MartinGentlemen, This thread is beginning to look very similar to one that was locked recently. For the same "I'm right and you're wrong" incoherent ramblings. Is it not possible that when debating the probability of ETI there can be no right or wrong? Two knowledgeable individuals as you should be able to come to some conlusion or at least agree that you disagree. This argument is getting very personal considering you're basically reviewing two books with differing views. Your correct Unc, that is why I posted that I will stop the argument by no longer responding to it. Telemud has admitted he never even read Probablity 1, yet is ready to condem it. Had he actual knowledge of what was in the book, a question you specifcally asked him and he did not answer, we would not be having this discussion. I see no reason to continue an argument withsome one that wants to attack something they have no actual knowledge of. If he reads Probablity 1 and wants to address any specific variables in it, then it will make sense to continue the discussion. And had he read it, he would have found that contrary to the actual title, they come up with a number slightly less than ONE. They just suggest that therefore perhaps it is close enough to ONE to allow an acceptance of ONE. Thus just as in Telemat's book, the results are that while there is a probability, there is no certainty. The same end game as Telemax's book. But that was no reason to not argue about the two books coming to the same conclusion. However, bottom line, Probablity 1 gives a very nice detailed examination of the Drake Equation and statistical analysis (which is actually the authors field of expertise.) You will enjoy it Unc. Nuf said. Quote
TeleMad Posted June 25, 2004 Report Posted June 25, 2004 Uncle Martin: Gentlemen, This thread is beginning to look very similar to one that was locked recently. For the same "I'm right and you're wrong" incoherent ramblings. Is it not possible that when debating the probability of ETI there can be no right or wrong? Well, gee, if only I had said something like... Simple fact is, no one can now PROVE that intelligent life exists somewhere else in the Universe, nor can anyone disprove it. We're back to each person being able to believe what he/she wants to on this and no one being able to be demonstrate their wrong. But wait...I DID SAY EXACTLY THAT! However, there can in fact be a right and a wrong. Anyone who claims to be able to PROVE that there MUST be other intelligent life in the Universe is WRONG. Anyone who claims to be able to DISPROVE that other intelligent life exists in the Universe is WRONG. Quote
Uncle Martin Posted June 26, 2004 Report Posted June 26, 2004 TeleMad,I truly enjoy your in depth and very informative posts to some threads. I believe you to be an intelligent person whom I would like to have around to answer those questions that I'm unfamiliar with. I ask you in the most honest words I can muster to please stop this I'm right you're wrong line of interrogation. PLEASE manifest your insecurities elsewhere, this is not the place. I realize that you and I got off on the wrong footing, whatever part of that was my fault I sincerely apologize for now. You and Freethinker are waging a war of semantics and misunderstanding due to the same poor introduction. Let us get past this pettiness, we are all too big to stoop to this level. Should we not raise the level of discourse to match the subject matter? In the words of Rodney King; CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?? Quote
TeleMad Posted June 26, 2004 Report Posted June 26, 2004 Well, this thread has been sidetracked so I guess I'll go one more. I view myself as sticking up for truth - or as close to truth as we can come to it at the current time. View my position in every thread at this site in that light and I think you will see that coming through consistently. If someone says something that is not truth - or as close as we can come to it at the current time - I am not going to back down: why should I? Do you and FreeThinker back down when a Creationist says the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Nope. But it appears many people refuse to accept that their position might be wrong and having someone who will stick up for the opposing -as-close-to-truth-as-we-can-currently-get position infuriates them. Sorry, but that is actually their problem, not mine. Finally, my name TeleMad has nothing to do with anger (despite what FreeThinker tried to imply). I was watching Mad TV when I was registering and trying to think of a user name. Mad TV is probably trademarked or something so I chose a "coded" form of it: Mad TV -> MadTelevision, shortened to MadTele, then the words swapped around because doing so made them flow off the tongue better -> TeleMad. Quote
Uncle Martin Posted June 26, 2004 Report Posted June 26, 2004 Thanks for explaining your user name. I took it literally as tele; to broadcast or effect at a distance......Mad; insanity or anger. I'm happy to know that you are not broadcasting your angry, insane views. To avoid any misunderstanding, the wink emoticon represents my attempt at humor. My user name is from television also, My Favorite Martian. Most people in this forum are likely too young to have seen the show however. Could be that we all watch too much TV. Quote
TeleMad Posted June 27, 2004 Report Posted June 27, 2004 My Favorite Martian...I remember it some. Black and white; I think the Martian would wiggle his index finger (unlike Samantha, who wiggled her nose) to do some trick; and two anttenae would pop up behind his head sometimes. And I think it starred the guy who played the history teacher - Mr Hand? - in Fast Times At Ridgemont High (the one who Sean Penn - Spicoli? - didn't get along with). Quote
Uncle Martin Posted June 27, 2004 Report Posted June 27, 2004 Yep, Ray Walston, that's the one. I'm glad someone else remembers. Mad TV was great when Nicole Sullivan was still on. It seems to have gone downhill since she left. Quote
TeleMad Posted June 27, 2004 Report Posted June 27, 2004 Did you know she's on King of Queens now? Quote
Uncle Martin Posted June 27, 2004 Report Posted June 27, 2004 No, thanks for letting me know. So, just to keep this on topic, life is watching hot babes on television. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.