Dear Norbert, well stated. As a scientist and the retired Chief of the Exobiology Branch at NASA Ames, where much work has and is being done on ET organic chemistry, I agree with your assessment, although much of the cosmogenic organics are abiotic. However, with the right environment the abiotic " soup" could lead to biotic-life building blocks. Remember, Harold Urey and others did this back in the 1950's.
Ted On 8/28/09 9:46 AM, "Norbert Classen" <riffr...@timewarp.de> wrote: > Dear Phil, and Exobio-Scepticists, > > I wouldn't give too much on whatever Crichton has to say - how about doing > some real homework, and studying books written by scientists first? Read, > e.g., "Vital Dust" by Nobel Prize winner Christian de Duve who answers most > of the basic questions on how "it happened here first". De Duve, who's > everything else but a romantic dreamer and certainly not the kind of guy > who's wasting his time with mental masturbation, comes to the conclusion > that life must be kind of a "cosmic imperative" instead of a weird > exception. But do me a favour, don't use the shortcut, i.e. don't Google it > up, and avoid reading online summaries on Wikipedia and other sites - read > the book from page 1 to 543, it's really worth the effort. > > After that you might want to re-read the studies on Murchison and other > carbonaceous chondrites which do not only prove to contain a smorgasbord of > various cosmogenic amino acids, but also nucleobases (the building blocks of > RNA and DNA), water, and many other ingredients of life (as we know it), in > addition to all the astronomic studies about planetary nebulae, the presence > of water, PAH's, methane, and other carbon-based molecules in protoplanetary > discs etc. pp. ... > > If you're still sceptic after all of that you might want to take a final > step, look into the mirror and ask yourself if it's just your own bias that > stops you from seing the obvious. I hope you don't take this as an offense > as it sure isn't ment as one, but as someone who studied philosophical > anthropology and the history of science it always takes me by surprise how > many educated people don't understand the full consequences of the > Copernican Shift. Don't get me wrong, of course they do "know" that Earth > isn't the flat center of our solar system, galaxy, or universe. However, > most did just exchange their geocentric view for a slightly modified > anthropocentric view where man is still that special, unique, and most > exquisite being: the Pride of Creation. And, of course, that also requires > that life is unique, and restricted to that small planet Earth: the Cradle > of Humanity. But, how scientific is that? It's pure human hubris, pitiful > self-importance, IMHO. > > Don't get me wrong: I don't believe in aliens contacting us anytime soon - > this is a enterily different affair and mainly a matter of time and space - > but to deny the probability of life somewhere else in the universe is as > stupid as the idea that planets around other stars are rare and exceptional > (something that was often believed up to the late 20th century, also for > obvious reasons), and as short sighted as Newton's assertion that meteorites > can't come from space. Today we do know better. Don't we? > > My two CM2's, > Norbert Classen > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com > [mailto:meteorite-list-boun...@meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Phil > Whitmer > Gesendet: Freitag, 28. August 2009 16:40 > An: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > Betreff: [meteorite-list] Alien Contact Predicted > > The Drake Equation is a prime example of mental masuturbation. It proves > absolutely nothing. How can an equation prove anything when none of the > variables are known with any certainity? As Rob points out, one zero > nullifies the whole silly thing. How about Ne; the number of known Earth > like planets supporting life=0. If you want dumb equations, the > creationists have a bunch of them that proves there is exactly one planet > that supports life. I can make up an equation that proves the existence of > mermaids, bigfoot, Nessie, unicorns, dragons, what imaginary being do you > want to believe in? I'll write a formula to prove it's existence. I'll be > easy, because I already know that life begets life. The Drake Equation > misses the key concept in the alien debate; mainly how does abiogenesis > occur? How does non living matter become alive? Once we figure out the > mechanics of this most basic problem, then we can extrapolate about whether > this seemingly miraculous event could happen more than once. If you're going > to believe in spontaneous generation on other planets, you had better > understand how it happened here first. Someone has to explain to me how > those left handed isomer amino acids from meteorites organized themselves > into living, self replicating DNA. (See this thread is related to > meteorites!) > > Crichton summed it up best at a lecture at Caltech : > The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most > cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in > with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from > "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means > nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless... > > And puhleez, don't give me that stupid absence of evidence argument, it > didn't hold water when Rumsfeld used it for imaginary WMDs, and it doesn't > justify the belief in phantasmagorical alien creatures. > > Mental masturbation is fun, but don't confuse it with real science! > >> From the Urban Dictionary: > > Mental masturbation: > > 1. The act of engaging in useless yet intellectually stimulating > conversation, usually as an excuse to avoid taking constructive action in > your life. > > 2. The act of engaging in intelligent and interesting conversation purely > for the enjoyment of your own greatness and individuality. Subjects range > from obscure lp's to cultural movements in preindustrial societies. Either > delivered through grand monlogues or subtle conversation orientation, it > links large words and random references resulting in nothing acually being > communicated. > > 3. Overly intensive self gratifying procrastination, thought and > contemplation for a subject not necessarily warranting such effort. > > > 4. The pretense of superior knowledge or intelligence by claiming > conjecture, theory, feeling or opinion as fact. > > 5. The act of engaging in impractical/nonproductive mental exercise / > thinkings / writings / etc., through which a practitioner only comforts > oneself mentally. Such acts don't lead to any constructive results what so > ever in the real world; some might even imagine oneself being transformed > into superman, or simply the opposite sex, etc. > In short, it's just bs/crap. > > Phil Whitmer > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > > ______________________________________________ > http://www.meteoritecentral.com > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list ______________________________________________ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
