Dear List,
The question of life on Mars has sometimes been
approached with the Saganism Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence, and this has been
used to justify IF the biomarker can possibly in some
way be produced inorganically, then it is no
biomarker.
Nonsense. The Copernican
Sterling W. wrote:
The key has to be that the creation of life was NOT a random
process. For every molecule that fits a template, millions did not.
That's a selective mechanism, not a random one. If you allow a strong
selective effect at every step instead of random chance, it's done in
short
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] THE ODDS OF LIFE
Sterling W. wrote:
The key has to be that the creation of life was NOT a random
process
Everybody!
Probabilities are tricky things. When they're imponderable, they
just can not be estimated, except by guess and golly. Doug draws one
conclusion from 100 bacteria. Marc draws the opposite. As for the
mathematical odds of either one's case, it's like whether you like
broccoli or
Hi,
A prominent British bookie, er, I mean, betting parlor --
Ladbrokes has since 1967 had an open book taking bets on the
existence of Life On Mars.
They took their first bet on life on Mars in the early
1970's, at odds of 1000 to 1 (against). It was for ten
]
To: Meteorite List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [meteorite-list] The Odds Of Life On Mars
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:26:11 -0600
Hi,
A prominent British bookie, er, I mean, betting parlor --
Ladbrokes has since 1967 had an open book taking bets on the
existence of Life On Mars
I don't know about that one, if we can't even all agree whether phages right under our nose and in it are "life", the Mars bet sounds somewhat underdefined to be betting on!
On Earth we recognize life when we see it, usually. But unless Mars seeded Earth I'm not confident we'd recognize it.
7 matches
Mail list logo
