Madison Science Pub for March, Madison, WI

Absolutely fascinating subjects! If I lived within a couple of hours I'd be there.

How do creationists go about approaching those questions? "There is no 'astrobiology' because there is no evolution and God only created life once, on Earth...because the Bible says so." Then when extraterrestrial biology is discovered, they will suddenly "discover" that the Bible said there was all along.

Challenge to anyone with too much time on his hands: find one or more passages in the Bible that COULD be interpreted to mean that there is life elsewhere.

You called?

Isaiah 47:26: "Lift up your eyes to the heavens; consider who created these, led out their host one by one, and summoned each by name. Through his great might, his strength and power, not one is missing."

Yes, yes. Too much time.

And Christians thought all along that referred to the stars, or maybe angels. Babes in the wood!

c) ground, surface of the earth 1) ground 2) soil

Which is the same thing that exobiology says.

What is life? Does it have to be based on nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids? If it isn’t similar in biochemistry, how are we going to recognize it?

Henry J said:

What is life? Does it have to be based on nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids? If it isn’t similar in biochemistry, how are we going to recognize it?

Living things eat, poop, grow, and reproduce. If things are found that do all of those, it would be a prime suspect in the search for life.

I think the things I listed are rough guidelines. With a completely novel biochemistry, stationary life forms could easily go unrecognized. So if something is seen to be growing, maybe throw some researchers at it and see if they figure out what it is?

I really wish we had more science pub meetings! It would great to be present among evolutionists all drinking beer and talking about how fish crawled out of the water to conquer the land. I propose setting up my own. Anyone game?

@Atheistoclast: I'm a long-time lurker, and your comment forced me to ask, "What's the joke?" To me, your comment was analogous to, "Hey! Let's sit around, drink beer and discuss how when the quarterback throws a football, it comes back towards the ground!"
I'm guessing fear makes people say strange things and, mister, you say some really strange things.

Atheistoclast said: I really wish we had more science pub meetings! ... I propose setting up my own. Anyone game?

garystar1 said: @Atheistoclast: I'm a long-time lurker, and your comment forced me to ask, "What's the joke?" To me, your comment was analogous to, "Hey! Let's sit around, drink beer and discuss how when the quarterback throws a football, it comes back towards the ground!" I'm guessing fear makes people say strange things and, mister, you say some really strange things.

garystar1 said: @Atheistoclast: I'm a long-time lurker, and your comment forced me to ask, "What's the joke?" To me, your comment was analogous to, "Hey! Let's sit around, drink beer and discuss how when the quarterback throws a football, it comes back towards the ground!" I'm guessing fear makes people say strange things and, mister, you say some really strange things.

I really wish we had more science pub meetings! … I propose setting up my own.

DS said: Time for another dump to the bathroom wall for the socially and intellectually challenged.

Atheistoclast said: I really wish we had more science pub meetings! It would great to be present among evolutionists all drinking beer and talking about how fish crawled out of the water to conquer the land. I propose setting up my own. Anyone game?

Rolf said: "I really wish we had more ID creationism pub meetings! It would great to be present among ID-iots all drinking root beer and talking about how God created all the endless forms most beautiful - that somehow managed to adapt and survive the wildly changing conditions on the young planet! I propose setting up my own."

Don't forget to include a bit about why the crocodile is in such a RARE category: largely unchanged for the last 100 million years.

And where all the dolphins, chimpanzees, and hummingbirds were then.

Just Bob said: Don't forget to include a bit about why the crocodile is in such a RARE category: largely unchanged for the last 100 million years. And where all the dolphins, chimpanzees, and hummingbirds were then.

Atheistoclast said:

Rolf said: "I really wish we had more ID creationism pub meetings! It would great to be present among ID-iots all drinking root beer and talking about how God created all the endless forms most beautiful - that somehow managed to adapt and survive the wildly changing conditions on the young planet! I propose setting up my own."

Our first subject will be a discussion about the crocodile which has been around (largely unchanged) for the last 100 million years in spite of all the wildly changing conditions on the planet! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZq8ZUE6GTU

We can then head off the next day to church to sing "All things bright and beautiful, all creatures great and small....the Lord God made them all."

Cecil Frances Alexander wrote: The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, He made them, high or lowly, And order'd their estate.

What do you say to this proposal?

Skip,

I warned you. If you don't want twenty more pages of ignorant off-topic crap like this, dump the troll to the bathroom wall now. Otherwise, this is all you can expect.

I think Atheistoclast should definitely start drinking more beer (CAVEAT - assuming normal liver function, no existing diagnosis of celiac sprue, etc). I support anything that furthers that. It will either improve him or exacerbate his tendencies to the point of bringing him in contact with those with the expertise to help him.

Initially, I was hesitant to make this somewhat unconventional recommendation, because even in the relatively low crime environment of the UK, law enforcement personnel have enough on their plates. But I've thought it over, and I think it's a good idea.

DS said: Skip, I warned you. If you don't want twenty more pages of ignorant off-topic crap like this, dump the troll to the bathroom wall now. Otherwise, this is all you can expect.

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: Skip, I warned you. If you don't want twenty more pages of ignorant off-topic crap like this, dump the troll to the bathroom wall now. Otherwise, this is all you can expect.

Can I find references to your published papers in the Bathroom Wall? *RESPECT*...I am a published scientist while you are not. Honor thy betters, you insolent puppy..

I think Atheistoclast should definitely start drinking more beer (CAVEAT - assuming normal liver function, no existing diagnosis of celiac sprue, etc).

Atheistoclast said: *RESPECT*...I am a published scientist while you are not. Honor thy betters, you insolent puppy..

Atheistoclast said: *RESPECT*...I am a published scientist while you are not. Honor thy betters, you insolent puppy..

Guys, don't be too hard on Clastie, he's been temporarily suspended on rationalskepticism.org (for misrepresentations of other people's words and work) and is in desperate need of a little attention.

I did warn you Skip.

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: Skip, I warned you. If you don't want twenty more pages of ignorant off-topic crap like this, dump the troll to the bathroom wall now. Otherwise, this is all you can expect.

Can I find references to your published papers in the Bathroom Wall? *RESPECT*...I am a published scientist while you are not. Honor thy betters, you insolent puppy..

DS said:

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: Skip, I warned you. If you don't want twenty more pages of ignorant off-topic crap like this, dump the troll to the bathroom wall now. Otherwise, this is all you can expect.

Can I find references to your published papers in the Bathroom Wall? *RESPECT*...I am a published scientist while you are not. Honor thy betters, you insolent puppy..

I posted a paper that disproves your "hypothesis" about evo devo. Funny you haven't bothered to read it or comment on it and yet you demand respect. You haven't earned any. You will get none.

Atheistoclast said:

DS said:

Atheistoclast said:

DS said: Skip, I warned you. If you don't want twenty more pages of ignorant off-topic crap like this, dump the troll to the bathroom wall now. Otherwise, this is all you can expect.

Can I find references to your published papers in the Bathroom Wall? *RESPECT*...I am a published scientist while you are not. Honor thy betters, you insolent puppy..

I posted a paper that disproves your "hypothesis" about evo devo. Funny you haven't bothered to read it or comment on it and yet you demand respect. You haven't earned any. You will get none.

I saw no paper...certainly not one written by a scientifically illiterate young whipper-snapper like yourself. Face it DS, you lied about having a publication record..right on this very site in front of millions of people. You have also defamed scientists like myself who work hard to get their work published.

DS said: If you want to read a paper, how about this one: Loehlin and Werren (2012) Evolution of shape by multiple regulatory changes to a growth gene. Science 335:(6071):943-947. From the conclusion: It has also been argued that noncoding cis-regulatory changes could play a central role in developmental differences between species. Our findings support this view and further implicate growth-regulating genes in organ-specific size and shape evolution.

Our first subject will be a discussion about the crocodile which has been around (largely unchanged) for the last 100 million years in spite of all the wildly changing conditions on the planet!

harold said:

Our first subject will be a discussion about the crocodile which has been around (largely unchanged) for the last 100 million years in spite of all the wildly changing conditions on the planet!

I'll bother to mention that there are many lineages that seem not to have changed much in morphology over that time period, including the less glamorous cockroach. The thought implied here is a variation on the "why are there still monkeys?" meme.

harold said: I'll bother to mention that there are many lineages that seem not to have changed much in morphology over that time period, including the less glamorous cockroach. The thought implied here is a variation on the "why are there still monkeys?" meme.

So that would be a no. Joe still hasn't read the paper and still has no answers. Got it. How surprising.

Now he's going into the old song and dance routine that if something doesn't happen all the time it can't happen at all. No one is fooled by that crap.

TIme to close the thread Skip. Why give the troll a free playground?

DS said: Well as long as the thread is already derailed,

Atheistoclast said:

I remain skeptical.

As usual, the total mass of evidence for this assertion approaches the cube root of zero asymptotically.

harold said:

Henry J said:

What is life? Does it have to be based on nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids? If it isn’t similar in biochemistry, how are we going to recognize it?

Living things eat, poop, grow, and reproduce. If things are found that do all of those, it would be a prime suspect in the search for life.

Define each of those precisely, with special emphasis on how you will recognize each in the context of a completely novel biochemistry. Do you think that all of these, as you define them, are required to identify life?

So, I would think that those 7 characteristics would be what one should look for to identify extraterrestrial life. Too bad I can't be in Madison to hear Dr. Johnson's thoughts.

Defining Henry’s terms regardless of biochemistry is relatively straightforward: eat - obtain energy from the environment

excrete waste chemicals into the environment

grow - increase cell number or cell size

reproduce - create progeny that resemble the parent(s)

The metabolism implied in “eat” and “poop” requires a cell membrane to localize the substrates, enzymes, and products of chemical pathways, thus being cellular is absolutely essential to “life”

Responding to stimuli as an individual organism (irritability)

or as a population (evolution) also is needed for survival.

RWard said:

So, I would think that those 7 characteristics would be what one should look for to identify extraterrestrial life. Too bad I can't be in Madison to hear Dr. Johnson's thoughts.

If your probe found a virus-like thing in deep space you wouldn't consider it life?

I really think that there needs to be a national dialog on evolution that involves more direct contact between the public and scientists. This is why science pub sessions are useful. I get the feeling that many scientists live in ivory towers and hold the public in disdain even through they fund their activities indirectly.

Despite the fact that I myself am an intellectual, and a successful published scientist , I hold deeply anti-intellectual antipathies towards the scientific establishment and academics in general. I think there are too many vested interests and entrenched attitudes out there. We need more freedom of thought and debate.

Atheistoclast said: I really think that there needs to be a national dialog on evolution that involves more direct contact between the public and scientists. This is why science pub sessions are useful. I get the feeling that many scientists live in ivory towers and hold the public in disdain even through they fund their activities indirectly. Despite the fact that I myself am an intellectual, and a successful published scientist , I hold deeply anti-intellectual antipathies towards the scientific establishment and academics in general. I think there are too many vested interests and entrenched attitudes out there. We need more freedom of thought and debate.

A little DA (devil's advocate).

"Any self-replication has to be imperfect, any population of individuals thus has to have some variation within it, and some variants will inevitably have a higher expected value of descendants than other variants."

Could we imagine an environment that has remained stable over, say, several billion years? Maybe an ice-dwarf planet orbiting a red dwarf. Imagine a single species that has evolved to a "plateau". It survives handily in its absolutely unchanging environment, and mutations, being generally harmful, do the species more harm than good. So it has evolved the ability to stop evolving. Reproductive variation is nonexistent. Mechanisms exist to check and double-check and cross-check and correct or eliminate any variation in the "seed" of the new generation.

Maybe there could be more than one species like that--not competing, certainly, but cooperating and dependent on each other, or inhabiting completely separate ecological niches.

Could there be an environment like that where conditions are so stable over geological time that evolution has essentially stopped, and the life there has completely lost the ability to evolve?

If you find a virus here on earth, do you consider it life? All terrestrial viruses are dependent of actual cells for reproduction (by definition). The existence of viruses, which are independent but obligate parasitic self-replicators, causes "definition of life" issues right here on earth.

Just Bob said: A little DA (devil's advocate). "Any self-replication has to be imperfect, any population of individuals thus has to have some variation within it, and some variants will inevitably have a higher expected value of descendants than other variants." Could we imagine an environment that has remained stable over, say, several billion years? Maybe an ice-dwarf planet orbiting a red dwarf. Imagine a single species that has evolved to a "plateau". It survives handily in its absolutely unchanging environment, and mutations, being generally harmful, do the species more harm than good. So it has evolved the ability to stop evolving. Reproductive variation is nonexistent. Mechanisms exist to check and double-check and cross-check and correct or eliminate any variation in the "seed" of the new generation. Maybe there could be more than one species like that--not competing, certainly, but cooperating and dependent on each other, or inhabiting completely separate ecological niches. Could there be an environment like that where conditions are so stable over geological time that evolution has essentially stopped, and the life there has completely lost the ability to evolve?

RWard said:

If you find a virus here on earth, do you consider it life? All terrestrial viruses are dependent of actual cells for reproduction (by definition). The existence of viruses, which are independent but obligate parasitic self-replicators, causes "definition of life" issues right here on earth.

Yes, actually I do. Viruses, like most parasitic organisms, are simplified and degenerate. They have lost unnecessary structure & function. That's an evolutionary outcome. Viruses are highly evolved, successful organisms. Failure to meet some 60-year-old seven part definition doesn't change that.

harold said:

Just Bob said: A little DA (devil's advocate). "Any self-replication has to be imperfect, any population of individuals thus has to have some variation within it, and some variants will inevitably have a higher expected value of descendants than other variants." Could we imagine an environment that has remained stable over, say, several billion years? Maybe an ice-dwarf planet orbiting a red dwarf. Imagine a single species that has evolved to a "plateau". It survives handily in its absolutely unchanging environment, and mutations, being generally harmful, do the species more harm than good. So it has evolved the ability to stop evolving. Reproductive variation is nonexistent. Mechanisms exist to check and double-check and cross-check and correct or eliminate any variation in the "seed" of the new generation. Maybe there could be more than one species like that--not competing, certainly, but cooperating and dependent on each other, or inhabiting completely separate ecological niches. Could there be an environment like that where conditions are so stable over geological time that evolution has essentially stopped, and the life there has completely lost the ability to evolve?

Certainly we could, but what I said would still be true. In fact we see this situation, albeit not for such long time spans, quite often, on earth. When a population is highly adapted to a stable environment, it's still absolutely true that some variants will inevitably have a higher expected value of descendants than other variants. Basically, in a highly adapted population in an long-established stable environment, novel mutations and recombinations that impact on phenotype are more likely to be selected against than selected for. The variants that are highly similar to recent ancestors will have a stronger advantage, relatively to more novel variants, in such an environment.

harold said: 2) Even if an environment were very stable and morphologic/physiologic phenotype were maintained, and we do see those maintained over long periods of time in some cases, there will still always be "change in frequency of alleles", because mutations with no impact or neutral impact on phenotype will arise and spread stochastically.

harold said: I'm going to have to strongly disagree again that any of this is necessarily "straightforward". Now, of course, it will be straightforward to recognize extraterrestrial life, and indeed, to forgo any consideration of the "definition of life" if, as you have implicitly assumed, it is either identical to or extremely and obviously similar to terrestrial life in biochemistry. That is essentially your point.

Let's see - "eat", yes, as long as you include photosynthesis....

"Waste" in an anthropormorphic term; I'll leave the teleology to creationists, but reactions that transduce chemical energy will leave by-products.

grow - increase cell number or cell size

Most of life on earth is unicellular and doesn't ever increase cell number per organism. It is hypothesized, reasonably, that all life on earth was unicellular, for a long period of time. Most unicellular organisms do change cell size from time to time, but that could be equally described as "swelling" and "shrinking".

The metabolism implied in “eat” and “poop” requires a cell membrane to localize the substrates, enzymes, and products of chemical pathways, thus being cellular is absolutely essential to “life”

This is intriguing on a number of levels. First of all, it makes a statement about the definition of life that some people working in abiogenesis might not be comfortable with. Self-replicating systems that aren't enclosed in a micro-environment (by which I mean any locally enclosed, self-created environment, regardless of gross scale) are not considered "life" here.

Responding to stimuli as an individual organism (irritability)

It's also common for humans, as active animals, to overlook the vast proportion of even the terrestrial biosphere that does not show much motile response to the environment. Irritability refers to a characteristic of organisms with a nervous system (yes, that is what the word means in this context, however, if you dispute that, I concede in advance).

or as a population (evolution) also is needed for survival.

Evolution is not a deliberate response to the environment.

Just Bob said:

harold said: 2) Even if an environment were very stable and morphologic/physiologic phenotype were maintained, and we do see those maintained over long periods of time in some cases, there will still always be "change in frequency of alleles", because mutations with no impact or neutral impact on phenotype will arise and spread stochastically.

What I'm suggesting is a situation where there is NO change in frequency of alleles, because the organisms have evolved biochemical mechanisms to prevent all variation. IANAS, but I understand that there are "correcting" mechanisms in earthly cells that attempt to repair DNA damage and thus slow down the rate and intensity of variation. (But luckily for us, that's not 100% effective.) I'm suggesting a biome where that IS 100% effective: either all variations are "corrected" or they are destroyed before "birth". Fantasy? Sure, but could it ever work that way?

harold said: ... the idea of a self-replicating system that can perfectly replicate itself without any variability seems essentially impossible to me.

SWT said: My informal conclusion was that if the genomes we've come across in nature are designed (and I don't see any reason to believe that's the case), they're designed to evolve.

Atheistoclast said:

SWT said: My informal conclusion was that if the genomes we've come across in nature are designed (and I don't see any reason to believe that's the case), they're designed to evolve.

The benefit to an imperfect replication system is two-fold: 1) It allows for flexibility and versatility. 2) It serves to control reproductive fitness by reducing it. The reason why genomes are *designed* is because they contain complex specified information (I mean by this the various sequence motifs) that natural processes alone cannot produce. Unfortunately, folks like Joe Felsenstein are in abject denial about this.

DS said: Right. Reduced fitness is a benefit and biological systems were intellignetly designed to fall apart but can never get any better. Got it.

Atheistoclast said: Reduced fitness prevents populations from outgrowing to the point where they deplete their own resources. It is good that some of us should suffer from infertility problems because this is Nature's way of telling us that our population growth must be constrained. Once again, you show complete ignorance and a lack of intelligence.

Just Bob said:

Atheistoclast said: Reduced fitness prevents populations from outgrowing to the point where they deplete their own resources. It is good that some of us should suffer from infertility problems because this is Nature's way of telling us that our population growth must be constrained. Once again, you show complete ignorance and a lack of intelligence.

So our GENES know that our population shouldn't increase too fast? Yeah, right. So how is it that nearly every living thing DOES overpopulate whenever it gets the chance--like being introduced to a new environment without effective predators, or a sudden increase in food availability?

Atheistoclast said: You evidently don't know anything about zoology and population biology. Both animals and plants conserve their ecosystems by not overpopulating and depleting their resources. Of course, predation and disease (often due to mutation) help in this respect. Humans are the one species which is destroying the environment.

The problem for astrobiologists (at least until recently) is the remote sensing of life, often with very limited dwell times. What characteristics of life might produce measurable effects in an environment that we could observe from light years away? For example, if we detected a planet with an atmosphere rich in oxygen, would that be a sure sign of life? Would lack of oxygen necessarily exclude life? Also, we might be able to make those observations only a few discrete times. Several of the characteristics so far enumerated require extended periods of observation. How might we detect life without the opportunity to directly watch a potential organism over time? Say, with a Mars rover and a few discrete samples?

Getting further afield, what if the potential organism operates on a time scale much different than ours? Maybe it has "irritability" responses measured in days or years? Would we even be able to tell?

Just some musings. :-)

FREE IDEA FOR AN SF WRITER!

Yes, I'm still stuck on this: A planet on which evolution stopped eons ago, due to an absolutely stable environment and no competition. Undoubtedly a very limited biota... maybe only a single species, or a couple that are commensal and interdependent. Maybe humans need that planet for something (even though it can't be Earthlike). Their activity or habitation on the planet would surely disrupt or even extinguish the indigenous species, which are utterly genetically incapable of evolving. If nothing else, they couldn't resist any introduced pathogens, or pollution, or even subtle atmospheric changes.

Would it be morally justified for humans to tamper with the planet at all? Should they try to genetically engineer adaptability back into the local species? What might be the result? Be absolutely careful not to endanger the biota in any way? Stay the hell away? Could the locals be sentient (surely not technological, but maybe with language)? What sort of past would have driven them to evolve intelligence, then cease evolving?

Just Bob said: A planet on which evolution stopped eons ago, due to an absolutely stable environment and no competition.

Undoubtedly a very limited biota... maybe only a single species, or a couple that are commensal and interdependent.

But there are (science fictional) cellular mechanisms to either correct or destroy any DNA (or whatever) that doesn't perfectly match the "proper" pattern.

And another conundrum for the humans: Were these organisms "designed" to remain inflexible in this static environment, and if so, by whom, and for what purpose?

Atheistofraud said:

DS said: Right. Reduced fitness is a benefit and biological systems were intellignetly designed to fall apart but can never get any better. Got it.

Reduced fitness prevents populations from outgrowing to the point where they deplete their own resources. It is good that some of us should suffer from infertility problems because this is Nature's way of telling us that our population growth must be constrained. Once again, you show complete ignorance and a lack of intelligence.