On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:19:18 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

Yet another post which I noticed failed to appear. More
irony WRT CW...

>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:01:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>><eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>> >> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>> >> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>> >>>> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
>>>>>> >>>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
>>>>>> >>>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
>>>>>> >>>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
>>>>>> >>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
>>>>>> >>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
>>>>>> >>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
>>>>>> >>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
>>>>>> >>> to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
>>>>>> >>> lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
>>>>>> >>> common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
>>>>>> >>> natural selection and other processes.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >> I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
>>>>>> >> even posted it myself.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
>>>>>> >accidental panspermia.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
>>>>>> in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
>>>>>> that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
>>>>>> the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
>>>>>> happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
>>>>>> there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
>>>>>> Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
>>>>>> >> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
>>>>>> >> anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
>>>>>> >> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
>>>>>> >> do so.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Bob C.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>>>>>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>>>>>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Isaac Asimov
>>>>>It seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
>>>>>milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
>>>>>represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
>>>>>between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
>>>>>SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
>>>>>common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
>>>>>level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
>>>>>
>>>>Regardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
>>>>(1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
>>>>error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
>>>>Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
>>>>even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
>>>>evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
>>>>didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of
>>>>civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
>>>>discussion.
>>>>
>>>>As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
>>>>all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
>>>>knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
>>>>it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
>>>>visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
>>>>But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
>>>>somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
>>>>statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
>>>>based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
>>>>rigorous.
>>>
>>>
>>>The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
>>>which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar
>>>travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
>>>certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel
>>>is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus
>>>a paradox.
>>>
>>OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
>>exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
>>require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
>>interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
>>an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
>
>
>My description above isn't meant to be exhaustive. But since you
>mention it, a desire for interstellar travel is a consequence of a
>common evolutionary strategy to expand and overcome, one not limited
>to humans.
>
Those are assumptions. Change "is a strategy" to "is usually
a strategy among known species" and change "one not limited
to humans" to "which may be not limited to humans" and I'll
accept it. Bottom line: We have a sample of *one* ecology,
and no knowledge of any other. Ignorance doesn't confer
surety.
>
>>IMHO, the full statement should be "If interstellar travel
>>is possible, and IF any civilization capable of so traveling
>>has the desire to do so, then they should be here at some
>>time during the lifetime of the galaxy". In this I see no
>>paradox, only a set of unknowns. And despite the fact that
>>our star system is only 1/3 the age of the universe, it may
>>be that early-population stars lacked some of the elements
>>required for life, which had to wait for the proper
>>environment, so "they've had plenty of time to get here" may
>>be a false assumption, and we're only just getting to the
>>point where a star-travelling civilization is possible. We
>>simply *don't now*.
>>
>>While I suppose you could call the lack of desire. or a
>>particular environmental restriction, a process which
>>inhibits the expansion, I don't believe that was part of the
>>assumption.
>>>
--

On 12/8/23 10:22 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:19:18 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>
> Yet another post which I noticed failed to appear. More
> irony WRT CW...
>
>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:01:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
>>>>>>>>>>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
>>>>>>>>>>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
>>>>>>>>>>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
>>>>>>>>>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
>>>>>>>>>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
>>>>>>>>>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
>>>>>>>>>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
>>>>>>>>>> to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
>>>>>>>>>> lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
>>>>>>>>>> common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
>>>>>>>>>> natural selection and other processes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
>>>>>>>>> even posted it myself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
>>>>>>>> accidental panspermia.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
>>>>>>> in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
>>>>>>> that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
>>>>>>> the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
>>>>>>> happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
>>>>>>> there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
>>>>>>> Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
>>>>>>>>> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
>>>>>>>>> anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
>>>>>>>>> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
>>>>>>>>> do so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Bob C.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>>>>>>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>>>>>>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Isaac Asimov
>>>>>> It seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
>>>>>> milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
>>>>>> represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
>>>>>> between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
>>>>>> SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
>>>>>> common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
>>>>>> level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Regardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
>>>>> (1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
>>>>> error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
>>>>> Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
>>>>> even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
>>>>> evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
>>>>> didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of
>>>>> civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
>>>>> all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
>>>>> knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
>>>>> it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
>>>>> visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
>>>>> But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
>>>>> somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
>>>>> statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
>>>>> based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
>>>>> rigorous.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
>>>> which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar
>>>> travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
>>>> certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel
>>>> is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus
>>>> a paradox.
>>>>
>>> OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
>>> exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
>>> require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
>>> interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
>>> an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
>>
>>
>> My description above isn't meant to be exhaustive. But since you
>> mention it, a desire for interstellar travel is a consequence of a
>> common evolutionary strategy to expand and overcome, one not limited
>> to humans.
>>
> Those are assumptions. Change "is a strategy" to "is usually
> a strategy among known species" and change "one not limited
> to humans" to "which may be not limited to humans" and I'll
> accept it. Bottom line: We have a sample of *one* ecology,
> and no knowledge of any other. Ignorance doesn't confer
> surety.

Unfortunately, Ignorance all to often *does* confer surety. It does not
confer trustworthiness nor justify surety.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:58:53 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:19:18 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:01:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>><eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>> >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>> >> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>>> >> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>> On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
>>>>>>> >>>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
>>>>>>> >>>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
>>>>>>> >>>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
>>>>>>> >>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
>>>>>>> >>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
>>>>>>> >>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
>>>>>>> >>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
>>>>>>> >>> to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
>>>>>>> >>> lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
>>>>>>> >>> common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
>>>>>>> >>> natural selection and other processes.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >> I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
>>>>>>> >> even posted it myself.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
>>>>>>> >accidental panspermia.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
>>>>>>> in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
>>>>>>> that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
>>>>>>> the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
>>>>>>> happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
>>>>>>> there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
>>>>>>> Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
>>>>>>> >> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
>>>>>>> >> anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
>>>>>>> >> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
>>>>>>> >> do so.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Bob C.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>>>>>>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>>>>>>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Isaac Asimov
>>>>>>It seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
>>>>>>milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
>>>>>>represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
>>>>>>between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
>>>>>>SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
>>>>>>common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
>>>>>>level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Regardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
>>>>>(1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
>>>>>error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
>>>>>Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
>>>>>even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
>>>>>evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
>>>>>didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of
>>>>>civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
>>>>>discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
>>>>>all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
>>>>>knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
>>>>>it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
>>>>>visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
>>>>>But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
>>>>>somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
>>>>>statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
>>>>>based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
>>>>>rigorous.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
>>>>which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar
>>>>travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
>>>>certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel
>>>>is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus
>>>>a paradox.
>>>>
>>>OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
>>>exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
>>>require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
>>>interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
>>>an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
>>
>>
>>My description above isn't meant to be exhaustive. But since you
>>mention it, a desire for interstellar travel is a consequence of a
>>common evolutionary strategy to expand and overcome, one not limited
>>to humans.
>>
>Those are assumptions. Change "is a strategy" to "is usually
>a strategy among known species" and change "one not limited
>to humans" to "which may be not limited to humans" and I'll
>accept it. Bottom line: We have a sample of *one* ecology,
>and no knowledge of any other. Ignorance doesn't confer
>surety.

We know for a fact the strategy to expand and overcome is not limited
to humans. There are many other species besides humans, from bacteria
to chimpanzee, which are observed to practice it. Your expressed
bottom line is erroneous.

>>>IMHO, the full statement should be "If interstellar travel
>>>is possible, and IF any civilization capable of so traveling
>>>has the desire to do so, then they should be here at some
>>>time during the lifetime of the galaxy". In this I see no
>>>paradox, only a set of unknowns. And despite the fact that
>>>our star system is only 1/3 the age of the universe, it may
>>>be that early-population stars lacked some of the elements
>>>required for life, which had to wait for the proper
>>>environment, so "they've had plenty of time to get here" may
>>>be a false assumption, and we're only just getting to the
>>>point where a star-travelling civilization is possible. We
>>>simply *don't now*.
>>>
>>>While I suppose you could call the lack of desire. or a
>>>particular environmental restriction, a process which
>>>inhibits the expansion, I don't believe that was part of the
>>>assumption.
>>>>

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 08:24:23 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:

>On 12/8/23 10:22 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:19:18 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Yet another post which I noticed failed to appear. More
>> irony WRT CW...
>>
>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:01:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>>>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
>>>>>>>>>>>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
>>>>>>>>>>>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
>>>>>>>>>>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
>>>>>>>>>>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
>>>>>>>>>>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
>>>>>>>>>>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
>>>>>>>>>>> to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
>>>>>>>>>>> lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
>>>>>>>>>>> common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
>>>>>>>>>>> natural selection and other processes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
>>>>>>>>>> even posted it myself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
>>>>>>>>> accidental panspermia.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
>>>>>>>> in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
>>>>>>>> that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
>>>>>>>> the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
>>>>>>>> happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
>>>>>>>> there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
>>>>>>>> Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
>>>>>>>>>> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
>>>>>>>>>> anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
>>>>>>>>>> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
>>>>>>>>>> do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Bob C.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>>>>>>>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>>>>>>>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Isaac Asimov
>>>>>>> It seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
>>>>>>> milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
>>>>>>> represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
>>>>>>> between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
>>>>>>> SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
>>>>>>> common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
>>>>>>> level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
>>>>>> (1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
>>>>>> error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
>>>>>> Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
>>>>>> even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
>>>>>> evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
>>>>>> didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of
>>>>>> civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
>>>>>> all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
>>>>>> knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
>>>>>> it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
>>>>>> visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
>>>>>> But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
>>>>>> somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
>>>>>> statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
>>>>>> based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
>>>>>> rigorous.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
>>>>> which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar
>>>>> travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
>>>>> certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel
>>>>> is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus
>>>>> a paradox.
>>>>>
>>>> OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
>>>> exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
>>>> require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
>>>> interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
>>>> an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
>>>
>>>
>>> My description above isn't meant to be exhaustive. But since you
>>> mention it, a desire for interstellar travel is a consequence of a
>>> common evolutionary strategy to expand and overcome, one not limited
>>> to humans.
>>>
>> Those are assumptions. Change "is a strategy" to "is usually
>> a strategy among known species" and change "one not limited
>> to humans" to "which may be not limited to humans" and I'll
>> accept it. Bottom line: We have a sample of *one* ecology,
>> and no knowledge of any other. Ignorance doesn't confer
>> surety.
>
>Unfortunately, Ignorance all to often *does* confer surety. It does not
>confer trustworthiness nor justify surety.
>
OK, point taken.
>
--

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 08:24:23 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

>On 12/8/23 10:22 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:19:18 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Yet another post which I noticed failed to appear. More
>> irony WRT CW...
>>
>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:01:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>>>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
>>>>>>>>>>>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
>>>>>>>>>>>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
>>>>>>>>>>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
>>>>>>>>>>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
>>>>>>>>>>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
>>>>>>>>>>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
>>>>>>>>>>> to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
>>>>>>>>>>> lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
>>>>>>>>>>> common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
>>>>>>>>>>> natural selection and other processes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
>>>>>>>>>> even posted it myself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
>>>>>>>>> accidental panspermia.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
>>>>>>>> in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
>>>>>>>> that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
>>>>>>>> the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
>>>>>>>> happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
>>>>>>>> there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
>>>>>>>> Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
>>>>>>>>>> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
>>>>>>>>>> anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
>>>>>>>>>> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
>>>>>>>>>> do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Bob C.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>>>>>>>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>>>>>>>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Isaac Asimov
>>>>>>> It seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
>>>>>>> milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
>>>>>>> represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
>>>>>>> between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
>>>>>>> SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
>>>>>>> common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
>>>>>>> level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
>>>>>> (1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
>>>>>> error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
>>>>>> Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
>>>>>> even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
>>>>>> evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
>>>>>> didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of
>>>>>> civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
>>>>>> all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
>>>>>> knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
>>>>>> it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
>>>>>> visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
>>>>>> But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
>>>>>> somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
>>>>>> statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
>>>>>> based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
>>>>>> rigorous.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
>>>>> which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar
>>>>> travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
>>>>> certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel
>>>>> is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus
>>>>> a paradox.
>>>>>
>>>> OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
>>>> exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
>>>> require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
>>>> interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
>>>> an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
>>>
>>>
>>> My description above isn't meant to be exhaustive. But since you
>>> mention it, a desire for interstellar travel is a consequence of a
>>> common evolutionary strategy to expand and overcome, one not limited
>>> to humans.
>>>
>> Those are assumptions. Change "is a strategy" to "is usually
>> a strategy among known species" and change "one not limited
>> to humans" to "which may be not limited to humans" and I'll
>> accept it. Bottom line: We have a sample of *one* ecology,
>> and no knowledge of any other. Ignorance doesn't confer
>> surety.
>
>Unfortunately, Ignorance all to often *does* confer surety. It does not
>confer trustworthiness nor justify surety.

On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:05:13 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 15:58:53 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:19:18 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:01:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>><eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>> >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>> >> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>>>> >> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >>> On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
>>>>>>>> >>>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
>>>>>>>> >>>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
>>>>>>>> >>>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
>>>>>>>> >>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
>>>>>>>> >>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
>>>>>>>> >>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
>>>>>>>> >>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
>>>>>>>> >>> to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
>>>>>>>> >>> lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
>>>>>>>> >>> common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
>>>>>>>> >>> natural selection and other processes.
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
>>>>>>>> >> even posted it myself.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
>>>>>>>> >accidental panspermia.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
>>>>>>>> in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
>>>>>>>> that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
>>>>>>>> the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
>>>>>>>> happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
>>>>>>>> there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
>>>>>>>> Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
>>>>>>>> >> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
>>>>>>>> >> anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
>>>>>>>> >> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
>>>>>>>> >> do so.
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Bob C.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>>>>>>>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>>>>>>>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Isaac Asimov
>>>>>>>It seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
>>>>>>>milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
>>>>>>>represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
>>>>>>>between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
>>>>>>>SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
>>>>>>>common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
>>>>>>>level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
>>>>>>(1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
>>>>>>error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
>>>>>>Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
>>>>>>even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
>>>>>>evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
>>>>>>didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of
>>>>>>civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
>>>>>>discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
>>>>>>all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
>>>>>>knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
>>>>>>it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
>>>>>>visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
>>>>>>But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
>>>>>>somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
>>>>>>statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
>>>>>>based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
>>>>>>rigorous.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
>>>>>which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar
>>>>>travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
>>>>>certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel
>>>>>is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus
>>>>>a paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
>>>>exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
>>>>require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
>>>>interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
>>>>an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
>>>
>>>
>>>My description above isn't meant to be exhaustive. But since you
>>>mention it, a desire for interstellar travel is a consequence of a
>>>common evolutionary strategy to expand and overcome, one not limited
>>>to humans.
>>>
>>Those are assumptions. Change "is a strategy" to "is usually
>>a strategy among known species" and change "one not limited
>>to humans" to "which may be not limited to humans" and I'll
>>accept it. Bottom line: We have a sample of *one* ecology,
>>and no knowledge of any other. Ignorance doesn't confer
>>surety.
>
>
>We know for a fact the strategy to expand and overcome is not limited
>to humans. There are many other species besides humans, from bacteria
>to chimpanzee, which are observed to practice it. Your expressed
>bottom line is erroneous.
>
As I noted, we have a sample of exactly one ecology.
Attributing its characteristics to others, no matter how
logical it might seem to do so, is anthropomorphic (or to
nitpick, terromorphic). Or maybe provincial is a better
term; "here, therefore everywhere".

On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:54:36 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 08:24:23 -0800, Mark Isaak
><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>
>>On 12/8/23 10:22 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:19:18 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Yet another post which I noticed failed to appear. More
>>> irony WRT CW...
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:01:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>>>>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
>>>>>>>>>>>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
>>>>>>>>>>>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
>>>>>>>>>>>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
>>>>>>>>>>>> lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
>>>>>>>>>>>> common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
>>>>>>>>>>>> natural selection and other processes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
>>>>>>>>>>> even posted it myself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
>>>>>>>>>> accidental panspermia.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
>>>>>>>>> in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
>>>>>>>>> that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
>>>>>>>>> the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
>>>>>>>>> happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
>>>>>>>>> there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
>>>>>>>>> Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
>>>>>>>>>>> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
>>>>>>>>>>> anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
>>>>>>>>>>> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
>>>>>>>>>>> do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Bob C.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>>>>>>>>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>>>>>>>>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Isaac Asimov
>>>>>>>> It seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
>>>>>>>> milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
>>>>>>>> represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
>>>>>>>> between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
>>>>>>>> SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
>>>>>>>> common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
>>>>>>>> level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
>>>>>>> (1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
>>>>>>> error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
>>>>>>> Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
>>>>>>> even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
>>>>>>> evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
>>>>>>> didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of
>>>>>>> civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
>>>>>>> all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
>>>>>>> knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
>>>>>>> it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
>>>>>>> visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
>>>>>>> But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
>>>>>>> somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
>>>>>>> statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
>>>>>>> based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
>>>>>>> rigorous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
>>>>>> which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar
>>>>>> travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
>>>>>> certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel
>>>>>> is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus
>>>>>> a paradox.
>>>>>>
>>>>> OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
>>>>> exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
>>>>> require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
>>>>> interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
>>>>> an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My description above isn't meant to be exhaustive. But since you
>>>> mention it, a desire for interstellar travel is a consequence of a
>>>> common evolutionary strategy to expand and overcome, one not limited
>>>> to humans.
>>>>
>>> Those are assumptions. Change "is a strategy" to "is usually
>>> a strategy among known species" and change "one not limited
>>> to humans" to "which may be not limited to humans" and I'll
>>> accept it. Bottom line: We have a sample of *one* ecology,
>>> and no knowledge of any other. Ignorance doesn't confer
>>> surety.
>>
>>Unfortunately, Ignorance all to often *does* confer surety. It does not
>>confer trustworthiness nor justify surety.
>
>
>Assertion of ignorance where it does not exist illustrates a lack of
>trustworthiness/surety.
>
Yes, I've noticed that in posts by some here.
>
--

On 2023-12-10 06:55, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:54:36 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 08:24:23 -0800, Mark Isaak
>> <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/8/23 10:22 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:19:18 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Yet another post which I noticed failed to appear. More
>>>> irony WRT CW...
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 09:01:28 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 10:24:20 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:19:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:44:18 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 2:42:00?PM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 21:31:25 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>>>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/12/2023 21:10, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 19:12:12 +0000, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>>>>>>>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/12/2023 18:54, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, technically it might not be part of evolution, nevertheless, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not irrelevant to the evolutionary scientist laboring in the field of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OOL. Not to mention that the _fact_ that life had to _begin_ or there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be no evolution. Consequently, OOL is very relevant to evolution!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evolution operates regardless of whether life on earth originated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> through spontaneous abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, supernatural
>>>>>>>>>>>>> abiogenesis, spontaneous panspermia, local panspermia, direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> panspermia, transit through interuniversal portals, or some other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility that has escape my attention or imagination. You can appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the origin of life as a gap to stick your god\\\designer in, but a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack of knowledge of how life originated isn't an argument against the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> common descent with modification of life on earth through the agency of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> natural selection and other processes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe I've seen that posted here several times; I've
>>>>>>>>>>>> even posted it myself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've posted versions of that list a few times; this time I forgot
>>>>>>>>>>> accidental panspermia.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, mustn't forget *that*! :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Levity aside, it also seems that they forget that panspermia
>>>>>>>>>> in any form implies fairly widespread abiogenesis (well,
>>>>>>>>>> that's my take, since it happened here; Peter seems to be of
>>>>>>>>>> the opinion that abiogenesis is so unlikely that it only
>>>>>>>>>> happens at most once per galaxy, an unlikelihood for which
>>>>>>>>>> there seems to be no actual evidence; plus the idea that the
>>>>>>>>>> Earth is somehow "special" seems a bit much).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I also believe that if n=number of times it has been posted,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it also equals the number of times it has been ignored by
>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-evolutionists (IOW, the willfully blind and deaf). They
>>>>>>>>>>>> seem incapable of processing it, or unwilling to even try to
>>>>>>>>>>>> do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Bob C.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>>>>>>>>>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>>>>>>>>>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Isaac Asimov
>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that a case can be made for using the time required for life to arrive at certain
>>>>>>>>> milestones (first appearance, first photosynthesis, first eukayotes, multi-cellularity, etc) to
>>>>>>>>> represent the difficulty of arriving at that milestone. FIrst appearance of life on earth is somewhere
>>>>>>>>> between 200 - 500 My. All the subsequent advances required significantly more time, measured in Gy.
>>>>>>>>> SInce chemical building blocks are everywhere, and sufficiently earth-like conditions quite
>>>>>>>>> common, bacteria-grade life may be likewise common. Whether evolution proceeds to the
>>>>>>>>> level required to tickle the Fermi paradox is another question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regardless of the fact that our sample size is rather small
>>>>>>>> (1), that could be used to form a conjecture. Rather wide
>>>>>>>> error bands, of course, although not as wide as those in the
>>>>>>>> Drake Equation, which seems to hold a fascination for some
>>>>>>>> even though all but the first three terms are WAGs with zero
>>>>>>>> evidence in support. Of course, Frank Drake apparently
>>>>>>>> didn't intend it as a serious way to calculate the number of
>>>>>>>> civilizations in the galaxy, but as a stimulus for
>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for the Fermi Paradox, I don't consider it a paradox at
>>>>>>>> all, but merely a statement that our complete lack of
>>>>>>>> knowledge somehow forces us to ask where all the aliens are;
>>>>>>>> it would be a paradox (sort of) only if we had never been
>>>>>>>> visited by interstellar civilizations we *knew* to exist.
>>>>>>>> But as someone put it, "If life is so easy, someone from
>>>>>>>> somewhere must have come calling by now.". IMHO, any
>>>>>>>> statement which incorporates "if' followed by "must have",
>>>>>>>> based on conjectural premises rather than data, is far from
>>>>>>>> rigorous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "data" for the Fermi paradox is a straightforward computation
>>>>>>> which presumes only that stellar travel is possible. Once stellar
>>>>>>> travel is invented, expansion throughout a galaxy is almost a
>>>>>>> certainty within the lifetime of the galaxy. So either stellar travel
>>>>>>> is impossible, or some process inhibits the consequent expansion, thus
>>>>>>> a paradox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, I see the reasoning. But the possibilities aren't
>>>>>> exhausted by the stated ones; at the least, it would
>>>>>> require, in addition to the capability, the desire for
>>>>>> interstellar travel. Assuming such a desire on the part of
>>>>>> an alien civilization is anthropomorphic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My description above isn't meant to be exhaustive. But since you
>>>>> mention it, a desire for interstellar travel is a consequence of a
>>>>> common evolutionary strategy to expand and overcome, one not limited
>>>>> to humans.
>>>>>
>>>> Those are assumptions. Change "is a strategy" to "is usually
>>>> a strategy among known species" and change "one not limited
>>>> to humans" to "which may be not limited to humans" and I'll
>>>> accept it. Bottom line: We have a sample of *one* ecology,
>>>> and no knowledge of any other. Ignorance doesn't confer
>>>> surety.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, Ignorance all to often *does* confer surety. It does not
>>> confer trustworthiness nor justify surety.
>>
>>
>> Assertion of ignorance where it does not exist illustrates a lack of
>> trustworthiness/surety.
>>
> Yes, I've noticed that in posts by some here.
>>

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:53:19 +0800, Félix An
<fffelix.jan.yt@gmail.com> wrote:

>The thing is, the theory of evolution itself does not specify whether or
>not God exists, as that would be a theological, not scientific,
>question. I was at the Zhejiang Natural History Museum in Hangzhou a few
>days ago, and a sign claimed that biological life was definitely not the
>product of God, but of evolution. I find that statement very biased and
>not neutral. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no
>evidence for or against the existence of God, so it is perfectly fine to
>believe either way while accepting the scientific consensus on evolution.

Yes, ToE doesn't mention God for the same reason all other scientific
theories don't mention God. Proving or disproving God's existence
isn't a matter of evidence but of faith, and so contrary to scientific
inquiry and logical argument. Whether life is the product of God
depends entirely on your definition of God.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 12/18/23 12:53 AM, Félix An wrote:
[...]
>
> The thing is, the theory of evolution itself does not specify whether or
> not God exists, as that would be a theological, not scientific,
> question. I was at the Zhejiang Natural History Museum in Hangzhou a few
> days ago, and a sign claimed that biological life was definitely not the
> product of God, but of evolution. I find that statement very biased and
> not neutral. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no
> evidence for or against the existence of God, so it is perfectly fine to
> believe either way while accepting the scientific consensus on evolution.

Part of the problem with that sign is that there is no good definition
of God. Sure, certain gods can be ruled out; it is probably safe to say
that there are no superpowerful humanoid beings living at the summit of
Mount Olympus, for example. But ideas of god vary widely, and some are
so nebulous that they could apply to practically anything. No doubt
there are people who believe that evolution itself is part of God. And
nobody can make a case that they are wrong.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:53:19 +0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Félix An
<fffelix.jan.yt@gmail.com>:

>
<snip to the point>
>
>The thing is, the theory of evolution itself does not specify whether or
>not God exists, as that would be a theological, not scientific,
>question. I was at the Zhejiang Natural History Museum in Hangzhou a few
>days ago, and a sign claimed that biological life was definitely not the
>product of God, but of evolution. I find that statement very biased and
>not neutral. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no
>evidence for or against the existence of God, so it is perfectly fine to
>believe either way while accepting the scientific consensus on evolution.
>
I, and others, have often made that point, that science and
religion are not really related; science is about the search
for objective and verifiable knowledge, while religion is
about belief without objective evidence, or with only vague
and/or ambiguous evidence, in support.

The sign you referenced is essentially religious, being a
statement of belief rather than evidence-based knowledge. Of
course, it *is* rather difficult to prove a general
negative; one *not* a triviality such as "there's not a
visible elephant in that phone booth" (invisible, impalpable
elephants, like God, are of course considerably more
difficult to disprove :-) ).
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

> On 12/18/23 12:53 AM, Félix An wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > The thing is, the theory of evolution itself does not specify whether or
> > not God exists, as that would be a theological, not scientific,
> > question. I was at the Zhejiang Natural History Museum in Hangzhou a few
> > days ago, and a sign claimed that biological life was definitely not the
> > product of God, but of evolution. I find that statement very biased and
> > not neutral. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no
> > evidence for or against the existence of God, so it is perfectly fine to
> > believe either way while accepting the scientific consensus on evolution.
>
> Part of the problem with that sign is that there is no good definition
> of God.

By Spinoza and Einstein, God and Nature
are two words for the same thing.

> Sure, certain gods can be ruled out; it is probably safe to say
> that there are no superpowerful humanoid beings living at the summit of
> Mount Olympus, for example. But ideas of god vary widely, and some are
> so nebulous that they could apply to practically anything. No doubt
> there are people who believe that evolution itself is part of God. And
> nobody can make a case that they are wrong.

By Percy Jackson, the Olympians have moved to the Empire State Building,
floor six hundred,

Jan

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 07:46:02 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

>On 12/18/23 12:53 AM, Félix An wrote:
>[...]
>>
>> The thing is, the theory of evolution itself does not specify whether or
>> not God exists, as that would be a theological, not scientific,
>> question. I was at the Zhejiang Natural History Museum in Hangzhou a few
>> days ago, and a sign claimed that biological life was definitely not the
>> product of God, but of evolution. I find that statement very biased and
>> not neutral. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no
>> evidence for or against the existence of God, so it is perfectly fine to
>> believe either way while accepting the scientific consensus on evolution.
>
>Part of the problem with that sign is that there is no good definition
>of God. Sure, certain gods can be ruled out; it is probably safe to say
>that there are no superpowerful humanoid beings living at the summit of
>Mount Olympus, for example. But ideas of god vary widely, and some are
>so nebulous that they could apply to practically anything. No doubt
>there are people who believe that evolution itself is part of God. And
>nobody can make a case that they are wrong.

Just as the veracity of the sign depends on the signer's definition of
"God", the veracity of your last sentence depends on your definition
of "wrong".

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge