My bad. Listened to it again and Ross said 2nd. Also found this:

The example was thrown out off the cuff. The thing is that to switch your extimate from a billion stars with life to one star you need only switch your estimate of the probabilities from one in a trillion to one in a quintillion. Or something like that. When both numbers are so close to zero and there are so many variables involved, it need not mean you made major changes in your assumptions.

I'm not very good at word problems in math and was hoping someone else would give some numbers. Here's my attempt, could very well be completely wrong.

Assume 1 trillion planets.
Assume 500 fine tuning factors.

Then, if each factor is .99 the number of planets is 6.5 billion.
Reducing the percentage by .01 each step produces number of planets

.98 = 41 million
.97 = 243146
.96 = 1300
.95 = 7
.94 = .03

These are obviously not hard numbers. There may be fewer fine tuning factors but also much lower probabilities. Some of the factors may not be independent. Ross has made calculations using various assumptions of this kind. He always comes out with virtually zero earth like planets.

We don't know that you have to have an earth-like planet for life.

that would seem a very strange requirement. Perhaps there are some big assists with certain features, say liquid water, but even that isn't known to be mandatory. A replicating molecule in an environment that supports it could be very different than our past environment.

This was my point. If he changed his view from a billion to 0 over the last few decades he (as well as you I think) needs a lesson in error propagation. Any honest competent scientist will admit that the answer could be anywhere from 0 to billions.

+ billions

me too please. as this thread does not appear to be moving.

But was there anything scientific in what the guy said? I would have liked to have taken a look and decided for myself what parts had little scientific merit. We're big boys here.

It's not that I'm not willing to trust your judgment, but we don't need coddling or protection from theistic viewpoints either. Just wanted to make sure you keep that in mind.

Minor nit: I think you mean to say the solution is too sensitive to uncertainty, rather than "unstable."

Wat? Why do we necessarily expect the gene pools of other populations to be subject to significant selection pressure towards higher intelligence? (Or any other particular characteristic, for that matter?)

Not to mention, Dolphins DID happen to evolve higher intelligence compared to every other species on earth, except humans and possibly the other apes. And again not to mention, the evidence shows Dolphins did in fact evolve from terrestrial ancestors much less adapted to an aquatic environment, so there was plenty of change in phenotype.

The only thing your post shows is that this person does not understand evolution very well. Given that you don't either, I'm not surprised.

"where does my thread about dating sex robots go?"

New, Views and Gossip

Fair point, unstable wasn't the best word to use there.

I have restored the original link to Notready's OP. I will now move this thread to RGT as I promised, were the discussion can continue. I apologize for being slow on this.

This thread will still show in SMP and clicking on it should take you to the new location in RGT

-Zeno

He's probably the dumbest person on the planet:


For those in the area, the "dummy" will be giving a lecture in the Bay area 1/17 10:30a.m.:

http://www.bayareascience.org/calend...=detail&eID=82

Edit: Ironic, just noticed the lecture, open to the public, will be at Berkeley, Genetics and Plant Biology Bldg.

I didn't say he was "dumb." Nor did I read or hear his comment directly, so for all I know you quoted him out of context or whatever.

Regardless, his qualifications (in an unrelated field no less) are irrelevant; I can only go by what he says. It's not necessarily that surprising that he doesn't understand evolution. Dr. Michael Behe, for example, doesn't either, and he's a biology professor. Nor for that matter does your favorite Hugh Ross. (In fact, Dr. Ross doesn't seem to understand even very basic science.)

You should go back to SMP - you might have some credibility there.

Edit: Let's see, Marcy got a summa cum in a double major and a Ph.D., Behe has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and Ross has a Ph.D. And according to you, none of them know anything about evolution. And Ross doesn't even understand basic science. You're a real howler.

True enough, things I post are more similar to what a scientist or a philosopher would say than an evangelical.

You are probably right that I was too quick to negatively judge Marcy based on one (supposed) point, related second hand by you (or anyone else). Besides, according to you, Marcy accepts evolution and common descent, etc. Does this mean you agree with him?

Do you realize that both Behe and Ross have written books and/or posted stuff on websites which 99.99% of esteemed PhD scientists would agree is pseudo-scientific nonsense? Are all those scientists "howlers" too?

If your argument is that all science Ph.Ds understand evolution and all of "basic science" you will lose. I personally do not feel I know enough about evolution to teach it to college freshman without a decent bit of study first.

I predict that this will become the common refrain in RGT whenever an atheist disagrees with a theist.

Only when they make the usual mindless, idiotic statements that characterize SMP atheism.

I just noticed that the link was put back and I'll check it out. In the meantime...

It seems that you've managed to find someone with an admirable scientific pedigree who doubts evolution. I might doubt the existence god, but I never doubted the existence of such people.

I'm not sure why you think it's such a big deal though. For every Geoffrey W Marcy there are 90 other scientists who are equally if not more educated who disagree with him. Why do you seek the exception rather than the rule and tout it as something of significance?

What do you mean by 90 such scientists ... oh never mind nice edit.

Not evolution, just extraterrestrial life.

I think the person you are arguing with has a Ph.d so his statements can't be idiotic right?