Re: "Humans Do It Now" Criteria (was: Definition Challenge)


Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155619313.468927.7520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155537566.473954.115140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


SETI is based on the idea that IF there are intelligent ETs, and if
they use technology similar to what we use or may use in the future
(such as laser & xray messages), then we MAY be able to detect the
"artifacts" of such technology.


SETI is based on relevant science that strongly indicates that life on
Earth
is not unique.

Hogwash. There is no such precise science. The frequency of intelligent
life is entirely unknown. Drake's Equation has more wiggle room than
Sally Struther's undies. It is not inconceivable that we are the only
intelligent life forms within hundreds of galaxies. Nobody knows how
flukey smart life is.

SETI is based on the possibility that IF it is frequent, we may be able
to detect it.


There is strong evidence that the origin of life on Earth was a natural
consequence of its early history, particularly the presense of liquid water.
There is also strong evidence that planets form naturally and commonly, and
that some of these planets will have habitats similar to Earth's early
environment. Hence, the valid scientific theory that life on Earth is not
unique.

It is speculation, not theory. Nobody really knows. Estimates are all
over the map.

There is a recent book called "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon
in the Universe" that argues ET may be uncommon.


There are several avenues for further testing along these lines. Stronger
theories of abiogenesis, or planetary formation. The detection of free
oxygen in a planetary atmosphere. The detection of narrow-band radio signals
with a distinctive doppler shift.

Perhaps. But DNA-ID may have its own "bonuses". These bonuses are not
a requirement. Stop making up bogus requirements.

SETI is simply testing sci-fi ideas. Why is DNA-ID's sci-fi less
"worthy" than SETI's???


If life on Earth is not unique, then the question becomes how common it
is,
and how commonly does it result in technological intelligence. The most
meager technology that can be detected from afar is radio technology.
That
makes the exploration parsimonious.

Discussed in a reply to Josephus.

In addition, ETI capable of altering
alien genetic material would in all liklihood leave a radio signature.


This is flawed. We already discussed multiple reasons why such may not
be the case. For one, the planters may have died off or moved. Most
Earth species only last about 2 million years on average. We have yet
to have a reason to think that ET will be different.


You can speculate all day long. It doesn't constitute a valid scientific
hypothesis. If there are aliens running around the galaxy planting seeds,
there are more reasonable and likely methods of detection.

That is YOUR PET speculation. Nobody knows how likely different methods
of communication are.

For one, radio broadcasts may last only a few centuries as beings
either die off or move to other communication technologies, such as
sight-to-sight lasers. However, planted genes may last hundreds of
millions of years. Thus, although it is probably a less likely form of
communication, it may be compensated by being a longer-lasting one. The
"message in a bottle" article that I referenced generally seems to
agree. Go call them dummy stupid troll idiots also, don't save your
love just for me.


Not to mention, you have no evidence that alien life has visited Earth to
manipulate its genomes.

And there is no evidence that ET is leaking radio waves.

You haven't proposed a valid hypothesis of what
happened, who made it happen, how it happened, when it happened, why it
happened. DNA-ID is completely detached from knowledge of the natural world,
and as you refuse to consider the evidence, it will apparently remain so.

So SETI gets a daily copy of the Zorkian Gazette with all the ET news
on Zork?

Double Staaaaaaandard galore. Are you jacking my leg too?


After
considerable study, narrow-band signals with a distinct doppler shift in
a
specific range of frequencies was chosen for reasons described
previously.

Doppler shifts are not a requirement, only a bonus.


They are considered an important signature. Again, we are working from what
is known about how life develops, not randomly speculating.

Irrelavent. Doppler shifting is not a requirement for SETI's hypoth,
and may not even be there if ET is broadcasting from a ship. Another
bogus hurdle.

DNA-ID ignores what is already known about genomes,

Not this again. You have no written proof of followup.

and does not address the
fundamental questions about the evolution of life in the galaxy.

Huh? Why is this a requirement, and how does SETI allegedly satisfy it
better?


This is ridiculous. I just answered that question a hundred times. Research
indicates that life in the galaxy is probably not unique to Earth. SETI is a
simple test based on that research. So is the detection of planets around
other stars. So is research into abiogenesis. So is research that detects
organic compounds in interstellar space. So is the attempt to detect free
oxygen in atmospheres of extra-solar planets. DNA-ID is, on the other hand,
nonsense.

The same ET's may be leaving messages in DNA. Thus, boosting the
existence of radio ET's also boosts the existence of DNA-fiddling ETs.
Both hypoths have very similar investments in the existence of ET.


There is not one, not one scientific paper on Martian cities on the
backside
of the Moon.

Huh? I don't see how this relates. YOU claimed that past DNA
researchers followed up on statistical outliers to make sure they were
not images, math patterns, etc. Not me. Now you seem to be belittling
your own claim. Odd behavior. Are you drinking?


You claim that extensive pattern analysis of genomes is irrelevant
because
they aren't looking for abstraction. Well, even though people have
explored
the Moon, they weren't looking for Martian cities. Hence, according to
your
assertions, they would have overlooked any anomalies, even if they were
ridiculously obvious outliers.

You agreed that not all intelligent patterns would be blantant
outliers. Ruling out the low-hanging fruit is not cutting down the
whole tree.


That's right. Maybe the Martian cities are painted gray.

Same color as your evidence.

So, I hypothesize there are Martian cities on the backside of the Moon.
Tell
us if you consider this a valid hypothesis.

Like I keep saying, hypothesisness (if there is such a word) is a
*continious* concept for those who understand science. As you use it,
"Valid" is Boolean, which conflicts with continious.


I asked you a specific question. Is the Lunar-Martian City assertion as
valid hypothesis? Why or why not?

You appear not to understand the difference between Boolean an
Continuous. Your question is like asking if houses are tall.

-T-

.

Relevant Pages