|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:17:48 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:04:27 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 05:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: I suspect that ALL life will have the same DNA. That seems unlikely. We have created alternate forms of DNA in the lab, using different bases than A, G, T, C, and U. And which code differently. I can believe we might see similar genetic chemistry, but many different bases and coding. That depends on what one's assumptions are. I'm making no assumptions. Only pointing out, as a matter of fact, that there are other nucleic acid chemistries possible. The details of our particular genetic system developed out of evolutionary processes. It seems extremely unlikely that the same one would develop even under identical conditions. Similar, sure. Most life will probably be based on the same basic chemistry. But the details are likely to be very different. Some guesses are better than others. I think it's very arrogant to believe that nobody's out there, and it's even more arrogant to believe they haven't been around longer than we have. Life, yes. Technological life, maybe no. We appear on the verge of destroying ourselves, and that may be the norm for technological species. They may not get much older than us. There's always a distribution when you have a "norm" and all that's necessary is a survivor out in the sunny side of the bell curve. Given the age of our galaxy at nine billion years (and it has incorporated stars far older than that - there is a red dwarf only 150 LY away that is estimated to be 14 billion years old). So that one survivor can spread its DNA over the whole galaxy in a few million years. Life has been present on Earth for 3.5 billion years. It only became complex multicellular life in the last 600 million, and a species capable of becoming technological only developed in the last 2 million. And on average, species only survive for a few million years before they go extinct. So even if life is common (which I think likely), technological life may be very rare. And then we need to consider why it would even want to spread itself over the galaxy, even assuming it somehow survived its own ability to control nature. |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 2:36:27 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:17:48 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:04:27 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 05:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: I suspect that ALL life will have the same DNA. That seems unlikely. We have created alternate forms of DNA in the lab, using different bases than A, G, T, C, and U. And which code differently. I can believe we might see similar genetic chemistry, but many different bases and coding. That depends on what one's assumptions are. I'm making no assumptions. Of COURSE you are, and so am I. Only pointing out, as a matter of fact, that there are other nucleic acid chemistries possible. The details of our particular genetic system developed out of evolutionary processes. But WHERE did those processes occur? It seems extremely unlikely that the same one would develop even under identical conditions. Similar, sure. Most life will probably be based on the same basic chemistry. But the details are likely to be very different. ONLY if life actually developed independently here. Some guesses are better than others. I think it's very arrogant to believe that nobody's out there, and it's even more arrogant to believe they haven't been around longer than we have. Life, yes. Technological life, maybe no. We appear on the verge of destroying ourselves, and that may be the norm for technological species. They may not get much older than us. There's always a distribution when you have a "norm" and all that's necessary is a survivor out in the sunny side of the bell curve. Given the age of our galaxy at nine billion years (and it has incorporated stars far older than that - there is a red dwarf only 150 LY away that is estimated to be 14 billion years old). So that one survivor can spread its DNA over the whole galaxy in a few million years. Life has been present on Earth for 3.5 billion years. It only became complex multicellular life in the last 600 million, and a species capable of becoming technological only developed in the last 2 million. And on average, species only survive for a few million years before they go extinct. You're comparing humans with nonhuman species. That may be a BIG fallacy. So even if life is common (which I think likely), technological life may be very rare. Rare, yes, but nonexistent, no. And then we need to consider why it would even want to spread itself over the galaxy, “The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space.” -- Carl Sagan even assuming it somehow survived its own ability to control nature. Not a big assumption considering the millions of suitable planets. |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:57:13 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: Only pointing out, as a matter of fact, that there are other nucleic acid chemistries possible. The details of our particular genetic system developed out of evolutionary processes. But WHERE did those processes occur? In nature. The same nature that operates everywhere. It seems extremely unlikely that the same one would develop even under identical conditions. Similar, sure. Most life will probably be based on the same basic chemistry. But the details are likely to be very different. ONLY if life actually developed independently here. Which is what all the evidence supports. Life has been present on Earth for 3.5 billion years. It only became complex multicellular life in the last 600 million, and a species capable of becoming technological only developed in the last 2 million. And on average, species only survive for a few million years before they go extinct. You're comparing humans with nonhuman species. That may be a BIG fallacy. It may not be accurate. I wouldn't call it a fallacy. It seems that the lifetime of humans will be much shorter than average. It's reasonable to see that as the norm for all technological species. And then we need to consider why it would even want to spread itself over the galaxy, The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space. -- Carl Sagan So what if it's big. If it's the same everywhere, there's not much reason to move around. even assuming it somehow survived its own ability to control nature. Not a big assumption considering the millions of suitable planets. I think it could well be a big assumption. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 3:35:08 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:57:13 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: Only pointing out, as a matter of fact, that there are other nucleic acid chemistries possible. The details of our particular genetic system developed out of evolutionary processes. But WHERE did those processes occur? In nature. The same nature that operates everywhere. That didn't answer the question: “The universe is a pretty big place.” -- Carl Sagan It seems extremely unlikely that the same one would develop even under identical conditions. Similar, sure. Most life will probably be based on the same basic chemistry. But the details are likely to be very different. ONLY if life actually developed independently here. Which is what all the evidence supports. "Supports" implies that other explanations are possible. Life has been present on Earth for 3.5 billion years. It only became complex multicellular life in the last 600 million, and a species capable of becoming technological only developed in the last 2 million. And on average, species only survive for a few million years before they go extinct. You're comparing humans with nonhuman species. That may be a BIG fallacy. It may not be accurate. I wouldn't call it a fallacy. It seems that the lifetime of humans will be much shorter than average. It's reasonable to see that as the norm for all technological species. What other "technological species" are observable other than humans? And then we need to consider why it would even want to spread itself over the galaxy, “The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space.” -- Carl Sagan So what if it's big. If it's the same everywhere, there's not much reason to move around. If ONE civilization developed early in the universe, it wouldn't be "the same everywhere." even assuming it somehow survived its own ability to control nature. Not a big assumption considering the millions of suitable planets. I think it could well be a big assumption. Your opinion vs. my opinion :-) “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” -- Douglas Adams “Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding.” – Bill Bullard "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion. – Robert A. Heinlein “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.” -- Bertrand Russell |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:59:05 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 3:35:08 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:57:13 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: Only pointing out, as a matter of fact, that there are other nucleic acid chemistries possible. The details of our particular genetic system developed out of evolutionary processes. But WHERE did those processes occur? In nature. The same nature that operates everywhere. That didn't answer the question: I think it did. The universe is a pretty big place. -- Carl Sagan It seems extremely unlikely that the same one would develop even under identical conditions. Similar, sure. Most life will probably be based on the same basic chemistry. But the details are likely to be very different. ONLY if life actually developed independently here. Which is what all the evidence supports. "Supports" implies that other explanations are possible. I don't suggest otherwise. But I follow the evidence, and it provides no basis for thinking life didn't originate on Earth. Life has been present on Earth for 3.5 billion years. It only became complex multicellular life in the last 600 million, and a species capable of becoming technological only developed in the last 2 million. And on average, species only survive for a few million years before they go extinct. You're comparing humans with nonhuman species. That may be a BIG fallacy. It may not be accurate. I wouldn't call it a fallacy. It seems that the lifetime of humans will be much shorter than average. It's reasonable to see that as the norm for all technological species. What other "technological species" are observable other than humans? None. But we can be sure of one thing: all will evolve culturally much faster than they can evolve physically. Which means all will be primitive animals capable of a high degree of control of nature. Like us, toddlers running around with machine guns. And then we need to consider why it would even want to spread itself over the galaxy, The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space. -- Carl Sagan So what if it's big. If it's the same everywhere, there's not much reason to move around. If ONE civilization developed early in the universe, it wouldn't be "the same everywhere." Sure it would. There's nothing to suggest that anyplace in the Universe is different from anyplace else. Ever. |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 4:38:37 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:59:05 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 3:35:08 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:57:13 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: But WHERE did those processes occur? In nature. The same nature that operates everywhere. That didn't answer the question: I think it did. Let me rephrase it: did it occur on earth or elsewhere? “The universe is a pretty big place.” -- Carl Sagan ONLY if life actually developed independently here. Which is what all the evidence supports. "Supports" implies that other explanations are possible. I don't suggest otherwise. I do. But I follow the evidence, and it provides no basis for thinking life didn't originate on Earth. A very parochial view, IMHO :-) You're comparing humans with nonhuman species. That may be a BIG fallacy. It may not be accurate. I wouldn't call it a fallacy. It seems that the lifetime of humans will be much shorter than average. It's reasonable to see that as the norm for all technological species. What other "technological species" are observable other than humans? None. But we can be sure of one thing: all will evolve culturally much faster than they can evolve physically. Which means all will be primitive animals capable of a high degree of control of nature. Like us, toddlers running around with machine guns. Unless papa comes along and takes them away from us. So what if it's big. If it's the same everywhere, there's not much reason to move around. If ONE civilization developed early in the universe, it wouldn't be "the same everywhere." Sure it would. There's nothing to suggest that anyplace in the Universe is different from anyplace else. Ever. Not true. If an early civilization existed before others then where it existed would be different from every place else. Consider the diffusion equation. |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 4:38:37 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:59:05 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 3:35:08 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:57:13 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: But WHERE did those processes occur? In nature. The same nature that operates everywhere. That didn't answer the question: I think it did. Let me rephrase it: did it occur on earth or elsewhere? On Earth. The universe is a pretty big place. -- Carl Sagan ONLY if life actually developed independently here. Which is what all the evidence supports. "Supports" implies that other explanations are possible. I don't suggest otherwise. I do. You suggest no other explanations are possible? But I follow the evidence, and it provides no basis for thinking life didn't originate on Earth. A very parochial view, IMHO :-) No. As always, I simply weigh the evidence. You're comparing humans with nonhuman species. That may be a BIG fallacy. It may not be accurate. I wouldn't call it a fallacy. It seems that the lifetime of humans will be much shorter than average. It's reasonable to see that as the norm for all technological species. What other "technological species" are observable other than humans? None. But we can be sure of one thing: all will evolve culturally much faster than they can evolve physically. Which means all will be primitive animals capable of a high degree of control of nature. Like us, toddlers running around with machine guns. Unless papa comes along and takes them away from us. There appears to be no papa in the picture. So what if it's big. If it's the same everywhere, there's not much reason to move around. If ONE civilization developed early in the universe, it wouldn't be "the same everywhere." Sure it would. There's nothing to suggest that anyplace in the Universe is different from anyplace else. Ever. Not true. If an early civilization existed before others then where it existed would be different from every place else. Consider the diffusion equation. Uh, no. Everywhere in the Universe is the same. |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 4:38:37 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
None. But we can be sure of one thing: all will evolve culturally much faster than they can evolve physically. Which means all will be primitive animals capable of a high degree of control of nature. Like us, toddlers running around with machine guns. "Evolving culturally" isn't the same thing as "advancing technologically". We could evolve culturally into more enlightened and peaceful beings. In any case, I don't see Australia and Norway threatening each other with nuclear weapons. Or France and the United States. So the notion that human biology constrains us to be warlike and violent seems preposterous to me. We know that we're capable of better. We just had some bad luck. Unfortunately, the Stalin regime in Russia survived World War II. Had that not been the case, we would have had a peaceful world, where all the countries that mattered were on the same track - peaceful towards each other, dedicated to freedom and individual rights. So the twists and turns of human history need not have been duplicated on an alien planet. Another civilization might never have had a conflict like the First World War that broke up the peaceful unipolar world of the Victorian Era. John Savard |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:07:27 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: As I said, it only takes ONE civilization to make it. It can then spread to other galaxies in a few million years, a very short time in the universe= You are hopelessly overoptimistic. The typical distance between galaxies is millions of light years or more. Therefore you are saying that any civilisation would with great probability learn interstellar travel at or near light speed. Are you even aware of the difficulties involved? For instance, colliding with a grain of sand near light speed would mean the end of your expedition. |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 05:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: I'm having trouble with your triple negative :-| Here's how it works: an N'th negative is a single negative if N is odd, and it's a positive if N is even. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Denial of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Science | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | April 24th 17 06:58 PM |
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | August 6th 15 12:14 PM |
Neil (EGO) Degrasse Tyson STEALS directly from Sagan | RichA[_6_] | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | April 17th 15 09:38 AM |
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON : CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 14th 14 04:32 PM |
'My Favorite Universe' (Neil deGrasse Tyson) | M Dombek | UK Astronomy | 1 | December 29th 05 12:01 AM |