C1ay Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 And note how I qualify all of my statements such as that with "if" and other such phrases. And that's the whole point isn't it? It's all speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted February 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 TeleMad/C1ay - If word such as "ludicrous" and "retarded" continue to be thrown at each other, you will be asked to abandon this discussion. I don't know, nor do I care, how people behave in other science forums. In THIS forum, we are *required* to be respectful of each other. Notice that I did not say that you are required to respect each other's beliefs, opinions, or positions. You are, however, expected to show each member the same amount of respect that you wish to have. Tele, it's good to have you back. And C1ay, it's nice to have you as part of our forum. However, both of your stays will be short-lived if you can't follow these very simple guidelines. Thank you, gentlemen, and have a great day!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 TeleMad/C1ay - If word such as "ludicrous" and "retarded" continue to be thrown at each other, you will be asked to abandon this discussion. Sorry. FWIW, I did not say or mean to imply that Telemad was ludicrous. I merely said it was ludicrous for mankind to think he is all knowing. This is not directed at any individual, it is simply a statement about a concept. My apologies if it sounded like it was something more than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted February 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 For any of you wondering why I am addressing TeleMad and C1ay... From our FAQ>(italics and bold are mine) What kinds of topics are discussed here?Basically, everything that falls within the labels above. We like to consider ourselves open minded, but we do not like to see commercials, arrogant comments, or flames. How should I behave?Be yourself. But please respect these ground rules: If you make strange claims, please provide proof. If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on. Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion. Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get.Also, we will not accept racist, sexist, hateful, or derogatory posts. Such posts may be deleted or edited without further notice. Violations of these ground rules might lead to banning without further notice. It is always a good idea to lurk around a bit before you start posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted February 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Sorry. FWIW, I did not say or mean to imply that Telemad was ludicrous. I merely said it was ludicrous for mankind to think he is all knowing. This is not directed at any individual, it is simply a statement about a concept. My apologies if it sounded like it was something more than this.No harm no foul.Just please try to keep in mind that many different people read through this stuff, and what might seem very logical to you does not mean it sounds the same to everyone else. I can understand and appreciate that you have differing opinions. What can not and will not be tolerated is for our members to display a lack of respect for each other. :( You and TeleMad are both very intelligent people, and I look forward to reading more of your exchange, sans the "ludicrously retarded" comments. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 At least I'm open-minded enough to consider the possibilities instead of just discarding them. You've got your mind made up that the odds are against these other possibilities so you simply dismiss them. IMO, that's just not an open-minded point of view at all. Do you not know how to read, or did you not even bother to read my post that you are replying to? As one example, did you not see the part where I said I don't claim there is no other life in the universe, but rather that neither side can legitimately assert that they are right and the other side wrong? Here, maybe it takes rubbing your nose in it. Here are my exact words from the post you were replying to: TeleMad: I don't claim there is not other life out there, but rather that neither side can legitimately assert that they are right and the other side is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 TeleMad/C1ay -If word such as "ludicrous" and "retarded" continue to be thrown at each other, you will be asked to abandon this discussion. Note that my statement about retarded was not directed at C1ay. Read it again: it is as innocuous as C1ay's was, and is even phrased like C1ay's was, and you accepted his as not being directed at any individual. In THIS forum, we are *required* to be respectful of each other. Tell that to C1ay as he is now guilty of stuffing words into my mouth, then attacking his fabricated position as if it were mine, then implying I was close minded because I supposedly held the position he stuffed into my mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 TeleMad and C1ay, this is a fasttrack to banning and I *really* don't want to do that. PLease just step away from this discussion NOW and cool down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 TeleMad and C1ay, this is a fasttrack to banning and I *really* don't want to do that. PLease just step away from this discussion NOW and cool down. As long as we all recognize that C1ay was at fault, it's fine with me to drop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 TeleMad and C1ay, this is a fasttrack to banning and I *really* don't want to do that. PLease just step away from this discussion NOW and cool down. If you simply examine the timestamps you will see I left the discussion an hour before your request to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostbitte Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 How can you do any "it must be"-type statistics when one of the key probabilities is unknown? Well then, what do you believe? I thought that's what this forum post was about? That confuses where life can survive after adapating to those conditions, with where life can arise: two very different things. How do we not know that primitive life on earth didn't develop that way and evolve to where it is now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted February 24, 2005 Report Share Posted February 24, 2005 Telemad: That confuses where life can survive after adapating to those conditions, with where life can arise: two very different things. How do we not know that primitive life on earth didn't develop that way and evolve to where it is now? Which way exactly? It is believed that life arose only once on Earth. That suggests that it can't arise everywhere that it could eventually adapt to as it spread and evolved; otherwise, we'd see lots of fundamentally different kinds of life on Earth. So in general: one origin under a particular set of conditions, followed by vast expansion over billions of years into all kinds of environments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 i don't think it has to follow that because life (however you want to define it) exists on this planet that it must exist anywhere else in space. i remember someone in a philosophy class using the 'its arrogant to think we [i guess he meant the fish, ants and fungi as well as humans] are the only life in the universe' line as if it proved something and thinking to myself 'why should conditions have heralded life to spring up anywhere else? why couldn't this just be a happy accident?' and though i understand that people want to believe in the possibility i cannot quite bring myself to think that all seti enterprises are anything but a waste of funds spurned by wishful thinking. of course i would be happily amazed to be proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 Which way exactly? It is believed that life arose only once on Earth. That suggests that it can't arise everywhere that it could eventually adapt to as it spread and evolved; otherwise, we'd see lots of fundamentally different kinds of life on Earth. So in general: one origin under a particular set of conditions, followed by vast expansion over billions of years into all kinds of environments. Probably ... "In the study of early life on Earth, one name towers above the rest: LUCA. LUCA is not the name of a famous scientist in the field; it is shorthand for Last Universal Common Ancestor, a single cell that lived perhaps 3 or 4 billion years ago, and from which all life has since evolved. Amazingly, every living thing we see around us (and many more that we can only see with the aid of a microscope) is related. As far as we can tell, life on Earth arose only once." But, "Carl Woese, one of the key players in the bid to reconstruct the tree of life, has added another twist to the LUCA puzzle. He has got researchers fired up by suggesting that: LUCA was also into gene swapping, and on a much larger scale than what we observe in modern bacteria gene swapping was once more important than inheritance from parent to offspring, and that early archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes each emerged independently from a 'sea' of gene transfer8 It's not clear how his claims could be tested, but they are certainly food for thought -- if he's right there never was a single LUCA, but more of a community of genes loosely associated with cells." http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 ... First, the LUCA would not have been the original life form: it would have been evolved from the first life form. So again,what environment the LUCA could have lived in is not necessarily the same environment that life could have arisen in. This was actually pointed out by several researchers when one line of genetic evidence pointed to the LUCA having lived in a cooler environment because many scientists believed that life originated in a very much hotter environment. As to the possibility that there might not have been a single LUCA, I am familiar with Carl Woese's idea, but have never seen spelled out how exactly it would work. Is there a community of living cells of different types sharing genetic information? Then the origin of each of those different non-related cell types needs to be explained, as well as how they could have lived without the others in the community before the community came to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 As to the possibility that there might not have been a single LUCA, I am familiar with Carl Woese's idea, but have never seen spelled out how exactly it would work. Is there a community of living cells of different types sharing genetic information? Then the origin of each of those different non-related cell types needs to be explained, as well as how they could have lived without the others in the community before the community came to be. I think this site explains the details more clearly: http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/litu/04_1.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted February 26, 2005 Report Share Posted February 26, 2005 I think this site explains the details more clearly: http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/litu/04_1.shtml I saw nothing on the page you linked to that had to do with Woese's "community, not LUCA" ideas. I even took the trouble to look over a different page there on LGT (lateral gene transfer) as that sounded promising, but again, nothing. I even took a look at a different page on ideas on the origin of life...again, nothing on Woese's idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts