[meteorite-list] Alien Contact Predicted

From: Ted Bunch <tbear1_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:01:02 -0700
Message-ID: <C6BD5B5E.D8D8%tbear1_at_cableone.net>

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" <riffraff at 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
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von Phil
> Whitmer
> Gesendet: Freitag, 28. August 2009 16:40
> An: meteorite-list at 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 at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Fri 28 Aug 2009 01:01:02 PM PDT