A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old September 27th 18, 09:36 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old September 27th 18, 09:57 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default 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  
Old September 27th 18, 10:35 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old September 27th 18, 10:59 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default 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  
Old September 27th 18, 11:38 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old September 28th 18, 03:37 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default 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  
Old September 28th 18, 05:21 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old September 28th 18, 07:56 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default 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  
Old September 28th 18, 10:46 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default 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  
Old September 28th 18, 10:53 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.