The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: carsforkids

Either way...do you think that the Drake Equation might be a useful communication tool for establishing first contact with an extraterrestrial civilization?

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: carsforkids

Either way...do you think that the Drake Equation might be a useful communication tool for establishing first contact with an extraterrestrial civilization?

If that does happen, people like carsforkids will call them demons

a reply to: carsforkids

You brought up Tour in a thread on the drake equation, LOL!

Name Tour's most convincing claim and I'll demolish it.

Looks like somebody already posted a video refuting him, but hey, surely you can refute that? Oh wait, you never offer original arguments you just parrot other people's opinions. Plus I can't help notice you called me a liar again without backing up that claim.

a reply to: midicon

The first few things Gary Hurd brings up are already responded to in the pdf linked in the description of the James Tour presentation on the Discovery Institute channel. For example:

Here is the first point regarding Szostak’s article, albeit the lesser issue. As listed, the sugars do not look like sugars. One needs to have the double bond shown to one of the oxygen atoms or they are not sugars. Shown are a diol and a triol. Even Jack, when he and I spoke on the phone, conceded that point. And he blamed the error on a staff artist from Scientific American, and the mistake was transcribed when the article was used by Nature. I have written several times for the News and Views section of Nature and Nature series journals. It is an honor to be so asked. But we are asked as authors to show care to ensure accuracy. And the galley proofs are returned to us for our careful check and documented approval. I reproduce that figure here below:
...
www.nature.com...

If one argues that the hydrogens can be left out and the multiple bonds need not be shown, that is simply incorrect. Without the addition of a double bond to the oxygen, then all remaining valance sites are presumed saturated with hydrogens. Likewise, under a standard where one is free to disregard both hydrogen atoms and the pi bonds,the “Cyanide derivatives” would be diaminomethane and 1-aminopropane. But if one argues that he/she could add as many hydrogen atoms as they like without showing the pi bonds, then the latter of the two “Cyanide derivatives” could be cyanoethene (acrylonitrile) or cyanoethyne. The former could be H2N-C=NH or HN=C=NH or H2N-CN (all hydrogen atoms shown immediately tell us that the last of these three listed here is cyanonitrene). Therefore, we cannot have it both ways. Either we fill in the hydrogen atoms or we show the pi bonds. But we cannot omit both. Moreover, the convention is that all heteroatoms should bear the hydrogen atoms. Only carbon can be devoid of hydrogen in the convention. But that is only to fill the valance states. So one needs to see the pi bonds if we are omitting the hydrogen atoms. Therefore, as drawn, the organic starting materials are glycerol(1,2,3-propanetriolor glycerin), ethylene glycol (1,2-ethanediol), diaminomethane (methanediamine), and 1-aminopropane. The latter two are troubling in light of the text which mentions iron cyanide. Iron(III) cyanide complexes are extremely stable; there is little free cyanide expected to be in the solution, so maybe Szostak is speaking of something else.

But all of the above is minor compared to Szostak’s showing that in a single step, heat and light can make a compound that resembles a dehydrated nucleotide (though it is not a nucleotide since it is devoid of any stereochemistry) from “simple sugars” and “cyanide derivatives.”A professor of psychiatry from a Canadian university even wrote to me last week saying that I was wrong in my Dallas lecture since Sutherland has shown that those simple compounds can lead to the nucleotides, and accusing me of not being familiar with a 2012 paper by Sutherland. Little did he know that I had extensively studied Sutherland’s work and critiqued it in 2016:
inference-review.com...
And that poor psychiatrist had been misled by Szostak to believe that all this chemistry is worked out and simply heat and light can work this magic. How misled even professors can become from these writings in Nature. The academy is led astray. The major issue is that heat and light cannot afford that conversion from ethylene glycol, glycerol, or the sugar products derived thereupon after their oxidation to the aldehydes. To present that heat and UV light can act on these compounds (even if we are to use these 2 and 3 carbon simple sugars rather than glycerol and ethyleneglycol, and to use any simple cyanide derivative) to afford anything like the listed “RNA nucleotide” (albeit not a nucleotide since it shows no stereochemistry) is incorrect and misleading. There are so many steps involved in such a transformation. But to a biologists, like Szostak, explaining to the non-expert, he feels the details are not essential for him to point out. But the details are everything! Stereochemistry is essential. And the reaction details are essential. Just look at the number of steps that Sutherland maps out in his article on “Common origins of RNA...”as he proceeds to the dehydrated RNA nucleotide listed as 10; the same one that Szostak inaccurately captured in his drawing.
www.nature.com...
I have highlighted for you what Sutherland, one of the greatest synthetic chemists that the world has ever enjoyed, had to do to afford the dehydrated “RNA nucleotide” that Szostak lists in his figure (albeit devoid of stereochemistry in the Szostak article). It took Sutherland 10-12 steps, with multiple more reagents—that is a hard synthesis! And Szostak showed it in just one step with a few simple reagents. That is misleading of Szostak, and I am sure that the professor of psychiatry is not the only one confused by all this—the poor fellow. Sutherland shows the proper relative stereochemistry (although it is racemic in Sutherland’s case, he draws a single enantiomer). And all that was reduced, by Szostak, to a mere “UV light and heat”. Szostak writes, “in the presence of UV light and phosphate, nucleotides were formed.” I find that disingenuous and it betrays the depth of the exacting chemistry involved. Just even that simple little formation of the cyanoethyne (6, and improperly reproduced in the Szostak article) requires the generation of ethyne by addition of water to calcium carbide and bubbling that through HCN and copper(II) chloride. Try that in a puddle somewhere. Try to keep cyanoethyne from decomposing in the presence of his favorite 254 nm UV light source which seems to be abundant in his prebiotic earth. And that is just the simple compound en route to the desired product. A detailed protocol was required by Sutherland, using advanced labs and the best tools and hundreds of years of chemical literature to aid him. So much chemistry is done, which shows the complexity. Yet to a biologist or a psychiatrist, it is as if: Oh well, it was done in the lab, so it is tantamount to accomplishing it on aprebiotic earth. No way! I work with students all the time. This chemistry is exacting and painful in a lab, and even with the experimental protocols in hand, it would be hard for anyone--only well-experienced PhD synthetic chemistry students can reproduce this work. And what if they did not have the protocols in hand? It would be much harder. And what if they did not have the best labs? It would be much harder. And what if they had to do it in a cave or an outdoor puddle of water? It would be much harder. And what if they could not characterize after each step? It would be much harder. ...

I noticed Gary Hurd worked in psychiatry as well. And in the field of anthropology. Not biochemistry nor synthetic chemistry. Because I had to cut it short, Tour concludes:

The people most likely to disagree with me, or to insufficiently appreciate what I am talking about, are the untrained. The synthetic chemist know precisely what I mean.

John-West-on-Szostak-Article.pdf

a reply to: whereislogic

Key point was:

But all of the above is minor compared to Szostak’s showing that in a single step, heat and light can make a compound that resembles a dehydrated nucleotide (though it is not a nucleotide since it is devoid of any stereochemistry) from “simple sugars” and “cyanide derivatives.”

I.e., the previous 'complaints' about what Tour said concerning the depiction of so-called “sugars” and “Cyanide derivatives”, as also raised by Gary Hurd, is a red herring to steer people's thinking in that direction, inventing flaws in Tour's presentation that aren't actually there, only to distract from the real issues here and start a debate about his minor commentary regarding the depictions being used to obscure the details by means of vagueness and oversimplifying processes and steps in synthesis that are too hard for mere chance to accomplish in a prebiotic environment and under prebiotic conditions.

The forces of nature simply do not have that kind of synthesis effect* on molecules and atoms if left to chance rather than the chemical engineering done by synthetic chemists like Sutherland (which is a good example of chemical engineering). *: as depicted by Szostak's article in Nature which is what Gary Hurd's first real point was about in the video linked on the previous page, after the usual straw man and ad hominem routines. So his first few objections are already a red herring, not a promising start. All I'm seeing is the usual marketing routine from Gary Hurd, capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, sifting the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others, distorting and twisting facts, specializing in lies and half-truths.

a reply to: Erno86

Oh now who's this person?

Either way...do you think that the Drake Equation might be a useful communication tool for establishing first contact with an extraterrestrial civilization?

What the hell are you doing going so far on topic?

Thank you for a good question they've been few and far between in
this thread.

As for a tool I myself am led to believe in terms of providing a positive
attitude of persistence in the scientific field of research (SETI). It
absolutely is a perfect tool. In this thread I was merely pointing to
the fallacy of chronology. Where as nobody knows a thing about the
time line the universe is on.

With out a Creator we absolutely do not know and likely never will.
But with a Creator? And if the Bible is his message, as i have no reason
to believe it isn't. Then we have always had the information with us
all along. Right there conveniently in the first three words of the
Bible.

THE MOST PRINTED AND POPULAR BOOK ON THE PLANET ( for my other readers)lol

a reply to: Barcs

You're wrong about this as much as everything else.

You brought up Tour in a thread on the drake equation, LOL!

And the only thing you've demolished is my reason for
responding to you. So I'll set you in the play pen with Jay
so you have some company and be done with ya.

a reply to: Jay-morris

If that does happen, people like carsforkids will call them demons

STFU!

You guys can't refute shlt obviously so I guess trolling and out right
lying are the typical's in your field.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jay-morris

If that does happen, people like carsforkids will call them demons

STFU!

You guys can't refute shlt obviously so I guess trolling and out right
lying are the typical's in your field.

Seriously! Can you make yourself look any more of an idiot? Everything in this thread has been refuted, and you have been clueless all the way through it. Seriously! Give up! Your sociopathic God is not real! Deal with it!

a reply to: carsforkids

With out a Creator we absolutely do not know and likely never will.
But with a Creator? And if the Bible is his message, as i have no reason
to believe it isn't. Then we have always had the information with us
all along. Right there conveniently in the first three words of the
Bible.

You say the information has always been with us. So according to 'your' interpretation of the bible how old is the Earth and the universe? That's a straightforward question and one which you should easily be able to answer.

a reply to: midicon

You say the information has always been with us. So according to 'your' interpretation of the bible how old is the Earth and the universe? That's a straightforward question and one which you should easily be able to answer.

I got you! Yes if we take into account what the Bible says? (Again IF)
And if I only reference the first three words f Genesis ? Then I would
think one would understand the amount of information is limited.

So I can't answer your question out of that context because every
calculation I've ever seen is different. And I'm just trying to be honest
with you. But for some odd reason the scriptures only include what
definitive information that it deems important. So it seems to me
the very first verse would be of the upmost importance. And there
is a ton of in information there.

In the beginning The beginning of what? US!

If this is the beginning of us and the rest of out there is empty?
It's no huge jump to realize that we are meant to fill the universe.

a reply to: carsforkids

I got you! Yes if we take into account what the Bible says? (Again IF)
And if I only reference the first three words f Genesis ? Then I would
think one would understand the amount of information is limited.

If you only refer to the first three words then it is useless in regard to determining the chronology of anything.
If you can't answer that question then why say 'we have always had that information with us'?
You can't have it both ways. We either have the information or we don't.

So I can't answer your question out of that context because every
calculation I've ever seen is different.

There was no context just a simple question about your interpretation of the bible with regard to the age of the Earth and the Universe. You are at odds with scientific findings and yet it would seem that you have no answer other than God did it a long time ago.

And I'm just trying to be honest with you.

I appreciate that.

In the beginning The beginning of what? US!

And now you are being ambiguous regarding those first three words. It's now not the beginning of the Earth and Universe but the beginning of 'us' with an exclamation mark to highlight the ambiguity.
So you still don't really know anything. You just used the first three words which say nothing except 'in the beginning'. So the information isn't there. Think about how many people have poured over that chapter and are none the wiser for it.

If this is the beginning of us and the rest of out there is empty?
It's no huge jump to realize that we are meant to fill the universe.

It might not be referring to the beginning of 'us' and it is a big jump to infer that we are meant to fill the universe. If the universe is 'empty' I'm sure we'd like to fill it but that doesn't mean we were meant to. That implies some sort of purpose to life that you are just assuming.

Thanks for replying.

a reply to: Barcs

Well our theories about Gravity didn't hold up very well when analysing astronomical observations to verify our Theory. In fact isn't that why physics now insists 95% of our universe is something which we simply can't see or measure. So basically we have a 5% chance of understanding the true nature of Gravity without invoking completely hypothetical energy and matter. This equation was created on a blackboard to balance the previous Theory's inability to explain the observations by massive amounts.

We simply have NO IDEA how Gravity works at a quantum level. Nothing that matches our scientific measurements at least.

I'm simply stating that Science actually has a poor and limited understanding of the universe confined to calculations and logic. Things are a little more complicated than running calculations on a computer i presume. Unless i can directly detect and accurately predict the behaviour with observational methods i simply don't accept it as part of reality, just a prediction that can only be verified at this moment by running simulations.

Also, do you think Science will cause the end of the human race? It's already having a runaway and exponential effect on the transformation of society through the technologies it inspires. I just fear a lot of the leaders in the Sciene and Technology field don't have our interests at heart as they care more about the dollars or world domination.

For me AGI is certainly a terrifying concept and the possible technological singularity is everything that is wrong with Science, discount morals and values as long as we keep progressing and discovering. It's too cold and calculated and not the true essence of reality nor meaning, simply describing the rules confining us to this realm and exploiting them for our own gain, at the possible cost of our annihilation.

At least our Silicon army will destroy half the Galaxy in a homage to our human ancestry after we are all turned into the Borg.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs

We simply have NO IDEA how Gravity works at a quantum level. Nothing that matches our scientific measurements at least.

We might not know HOW it works, but we don't need to know how it works in order to have a good understanding of its effects.

The effects of gravity are understood well enough to be able to make predictions about gravity;s effects and use that understanding. For example, we can use our understanding of the effects of gravity to send our spacecraft to the far reaches of the solar system while interacting with the gravitational effects of the sun and planets.

Another example is the way we used our understanding of the gravitational effects of the Moon and Earth when planning a free-return trajectory for spacecraft around the Moon and back to Earth, or how a tiny asteroid can gravitationally capture a space probe (such as the probe OSIRIS-ReX and asteroid Bennu). Or all the satellites and the space station in orbit around the Earth that use the effects of gravity to remain in orbit.

Those examples all require a pretty good understanding of how gravity will affect those spacecraft.

a reply to: Box of Rain

It doesn't explain the behaviours of mass either at a grand cosmological scale or quantum levels. So although we can see one property of it's behaviour and make reasonably accurate localised predictions it does not accurately explain our astronomical observations or have any description at a quantum level.

In fact Gravity is likely just one component of a larger process, one of which science hasn't postulated or dare i say prophesied, nor has any concept of.

Even at Quantum levels you hear a lot of talk of things like hidden variables. Most quantum science invokes these magical properties as its the only way they can get round quantum entanglement non-locality while preserving relativity.

a reply to: Box of Rain

We sure are pretty lucky, this random universe has been very kind to us with its coincidence.

I wouldn't even try guessing the probability of the CMB radiation being correlated with the motion of our solar system and the plane of our ellipse? That's gotta be a pretty small chance when you consider the distances and scale involved.

Also has anyone ever tried to work out the chances of a moon and sun performing a near perfect eclipse? Must be pretty small, another strange astronomical coincidence i'd say.

a reply to: midicon

Well I assumed you knew Genesis well enough to know the
meaning of the word.

: the origin or coming into being of something the genesis of a new political movement. Genesis. noun (2) Definition of Genesis (Entry 2 of 2) : the mainly narrative first book of canonical Jewish and Christian Scriptures — see Bible Table.

And the rest of that which is listed as being what God created in the beginning.
If it was ambiguous to you I only made reference to us because we are what
the rest was created for. We are the most important part of his Creation.

useless in regard to determining the chronology of anything.
If you can't answer that question then why say 'we have always had that information with us'?
You can't have it both ways. We either have the information or we don't.

If you need a date and what time of morning it was that the universe was created?
Good luck trying to find that any where. And if someone thinks they can make
calculations thru telescopic observations and determine an age of anything. And
sound convincing enough for only the most gullible? One might leave well enough
alone.

And since when is the information useless? How does that happen? It tells us
there was a beginning. That's information! What science would say different?

I have a question for you now. If I may?

How do you explain the vigorous and often use of the Bible in one scientific
field (archaeology) and it's complete dismissal in others? Would you deny
the chronological order of Biblical history confirmed by these artifacts.
Many of which were found with reference to the Bible?

It seems improbable as well as bias to me that it could be so often
correct. And then just discarded when it's claim can't be proven
merely because to much time has past.

There was no context

There was to context I wasn't referring to your question.
I was referring to the context of Genesis. HELLO

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Box of Rain

We sure are pretty lucky, this random universe has been very kind to us with its coincidence.

It's true that we are uniquely what we are because all of the very specific circumstances.

However, if some of those circumstances were different, I think there would still be some life somewhere that was just as uniquely suited to THOSE specific circumstances saying "Gee, aren't we lucky that things are exactly as they need to be for us to exist as we do?"

It's the anthropic principle and survivorship bias.

If things were just slightly different, our universe might not have stars and planets (as we understand stars and planets). However, what might be here instead is so unimaginably foreign to us that we cannot even begin to understand what type of intelligence that could be spawn in such a universe. It may not be life as we could possible recognize it, but it might still be able to wonder "Isn't it lucky for us that our universe is the way it is."

Also has anyone ever tried to work out the chances of a moon and sun performing a near perfect eclipse? Must be pretty small, another strange astronomical coincidence i'd say.

I'm not sure what you mea by a "near-perfect ellipse." Gravity is going to always make ellipses or sometimes near-circular orbits.