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


"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155792352.453815.77020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155706448.727825.319130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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


If you believe that life is unique to Earth, then that is just more
reason
to abandon DNA-ID. However, the evidence strongly indicates that life on
Earth is not unique. The question becomes one of frequency.

My point is that nobody knows how frequent ET is.

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.


And those bonuses are what exactly?

We don't know ahead of time. A message may tell where to find more
messages or more evidence, for example.


In other words, you waved your hands. Yes, searching for Martian cities on
the Moon may have bonuses. By the way, did you ever answer the question.
Does the assertion of Lunar-Gray Martian cities on the Moon represent a
valid scientific hypothesis?


It seems you are attached to this
"hypothesis" for non-scientific reasons. Why is that?

I am only debunking the claim that no form of ID is testable.



Perhaps you missed where I posted the definition of testable.

test, the procedure of submitting a statement to such conditions or
operations as will lead to its proof or disproof or to its acceptance or
rejection.

As there is no "test" that would cause you to abandon your claim, you are
not proposing a valid hypothesis.


hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
logical or empirical consequences.



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.


That is incorrect. It is based on reasonable scientific inferences. Radio
is
a fundamental property of the universe. It travels at the speed of light.

So does light, and x-rays.


Good point.



It
requires little energy to create. It can easily be used to communicate or
even as a simple beacon.

Sight-to-light lasers may require even less energy if designed well
because the energy is not dispursed over such a wide distance such that
most is "wasted". Plus, radio waves are more likely to give away your
position. ET may enjoy his privacy.


Lunar-Gray Martian cities on the Moon.






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.


Several problems, including the complete lack of evidence of an alien
Johnny
Appleseed traveling the galaxy, or visiting Earth,

So? There is no evidence for the existence of ET either.


That is incorrect. There is strong evidence that life is a natural
consequence, is based on carbon and water chemistry, and that these
components are widely available throughout galactic neighborhood.


Further, the
seeding could be automated or remote-controlled such that beings don't
have to physically set foot.


There is no evidence of robotic visitation either. Science would choose the
most parsimonious methodologies with the greatest chance of success. For
instance, looking for free oxygen in the atmosphere of extra-Solar planets.



and of course, the
complete lack of actual evidence that someone has tampered with the
natural
course of evolution.

Irrelavent. The version I am testing does not have evolution alteration
as a pre-requisite.


There is no evidence of an abstract message in the genomes, which have been
extensively analyzed for patterns. However, you are more than welcome to
examine the data, replicate the tests, or devise new tests. But nothing,
nothing you have proposed would be considered novel.





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.


Hmm. I just read that article. They speculate about sending a message to
the
future. Nothing about aliens.

I was not addressing the travel issue there.

http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/21/genetics-dna-computing-comm05-cx_mh_1024herper.html




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.


Then they will publish their results and deal with the evidence.

Is such a promise a prerequisite to qualilfy???


Yes. Refusing to confront the evidence is a sure indication that you have
abandoned science.



Again, you appear to be making up rules out of the blue.

And, can you provide documentation of this SETI pledge?


Try their sections on Education and Public Outreach, or Publications. Others
have already cited specific scientific journal articles.

SETI: The mission of the SETI Institute is to explore, understand and
explain the origin, nature and prevalence of life in the universe.
http://www.seti.org/




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?


No argument there.


So you concede your point?


You didn't make an argument. You made no point. You didn't propose a valid
scientific hypothesis.



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.


Actually, it is generally agreed that life would occur on a planet with
liquid water. A signal with a planetary doppler shift would be much more
likely to represent ETI. Any signal, no matter the origin would be
subject
to falsification, of course. Again, something you ignore.

That does not matter. Being on a planet is not a prerequisite. SETI
would not reject a signal or stop investigating just because it did not
have an orbiting pattern.


Any narrow-band signal would be assumed to be not ETI, and many efforts
would be made to explain the signal as non-artificial. A planetary
doppler-shift would be important. Unlike yourself, scientists can't just
make it up as they go along. They have to deal with the actual evidence. A
signal without a doppler-shift would be interesting, but according to
current understanding, would be much less likely to be artifice.



Bogus hurdles.

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.


I have provided a valid definition of hypothesis several times. You
consistently ignore it.

It is too vague as written to be an objective ruler. Pasting 100 times
will not change that. Vague is vague. I already pointed out at least 4
"wiggle words" that have not precise ruler with them.


In other words, you use the word "hypothesis" and "testable", but refuse to
acknowledge their commonly accepted definitions, and substitute cryptic ones
that validate your beliefs.

Ok. There really are Martian cities on the Moon. It really depends on what
"Martian", "cities", and "Moon" mean. By the way, do you consider the
assertion of "Martian cities on the Moon" to be a valid hypothesis. For some
reason, you never did answer.




Nor are they proposed in order to be
submitted for "acceptance or rejection".

I thought we agreed to replace "in order to" because science is not
about testing human motivations. Are you backing out again? You guys
have your own dancing doppler shift because you won't let anybody nail
down your rules and claims to anything specific and stable. Wafflers.


The order is "assertion", "implication", "test", "acceptance or rejection".
Scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat.
If you are speculating, I have no problem. But as you claim to be proposing
a valid scientific hypothesis, you must present an assertion consistent with
the available evidence, capable of making specific empircial predictions,
and proposing objective tests that will lead to the acceptance or rejection
of the hypothesis.


--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html




-T-



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Humans Do It Now" Criteria (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... "artifacts" of such technology. ... SETI is based on relevant science that strongly indicates that life on ... There is strong evidence that the origin of life on Earth was a natural ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Quote Without Comment
    ... Scientists would have us now believe that Mars may support life, ... Notice the ASSertion made without a shred of supporting evidence. ... but the only aliens existing on Planet Earth are those ... Sin is rebellious against God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: for those that think i can hurt a cause
    ... are descended from earlier life forms, ... Give us some evidence! ... There is after all STILL a Flat Earth Society!!!! ... religion has piled on the human race since we invented it as a means to explain our very confusing existance! ...
    (uk.religion.islam)
  • Re: Abiogenesis vs Old Earth Creationism
    ... Defending the Theory of Evolution against Young Earth Creationism ... the initial creation of life was a ... There is no firm evidence that life exists elsewhere in the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: CD Sales Down
    ... maybe if I'd set reason aside one time and went with my feeling that one time might have worked. ... Evidence is used to convince someone who DOESN'T already believe. ... entered the guy's head. ... there are all sorts of regulations about secondary usage of tech related to a whole host of items - being able to take something apart and rebuild it into something else. ...
    (alt.guitar)
Loading