On 16/03/2024 6:15 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 3/15/24 16:11, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:11:29 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/15/24 10:35, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:28:39 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On a sunny day (Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:38:47 -0700) it happened john
>>>>> larkin
>>>>> <jl@650pot.com> wrote in <s3d6vi95gfrbs6omoula55soaktalpggru@4ax.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:46:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On a sunny day (Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:13:31 -0700) it happened John
>>>>>>> Larkin
>>>>>>> <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> <in46vipa7a3eb6q7au6alobve5vfmv5jso@4ax.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 06:13:43 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>>>>>> <alien@comet.invalid>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On a sunny day (Wed, 13 Mar 2024 03:54:24 -0700) it happened
>>>>>>>>> John Larkin
>>>>>>>>> <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> <ae13viptr1sskaqq1h2ru1j9i85sdecfrd@4ax.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 07:09:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>>>>>>>> <alien@comet.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On a sunny day (Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:18:18 -0700) it happened
>>>>>>>>>>> john larkin
>>>>>>>>>>> <jl@650pot.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> <34h1vihp32geb2olkcscfksbr8k0bdgdmu@4ax.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 06:22:55 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>>>>>>>>>> <alien@comet.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shields up: New ideas might make active shielding viable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Active shielding was first proposed in the '60s. We’re
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally close to making it work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/03/shields-up-new-ideas-might-make-active-shielding-viable/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit of static oelectricity, 1 MV ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's all absurd, cramming a crew into a tiny dark
>>>>>>>>>>>> cylinder, deep
>>>>>>>>>>>> inside tons of magnets, to reduce their radiation exposure a
>>>>>>>>>>>> little.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes that may be more dangerus, tha tI why I like the
>>>>>>>>>>> elctrostatic solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Space is not people-friendly. Earth is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Traveling to or living on Mars woud be lethal. Living on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> moon
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be bad too.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we could convert some comet, live inside it,
>>>>>>>>>>> use its material for power water and  shelter
>>>>>>>>>>> and put an engine on it and start interstellar travel:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You go first.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh I would not mind flying the comet thing, would want to have
>>>>>>>>> a say in the design and food chosen though.
>>>>>>>>> but it will take generations to reach any target destination.
>>>>>>>>> So you have to bring whole families ,
>>>>>>>>> or as things go now, just some skin and have a computah hatch you
>>>>>>>>> and teach you when growing up near the destination.
>>>>>>>>> Makes you wonder if the first life on earth was brought here in
>>>>>>>>> a similar way
>>>>>>>>> (circular reasoning).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Earth is too good to be an accident, and our life form is too
>>>>>>>> complex
>>>>>>>> to have evolved from inorganics. Other civiizations in the universe
>>>>>>>> have probably advanced for billions of years. So it's likely that
>>>>>>>> Earth and DNA-based life were designed, maybe as a high school
>>>>>>>> science
>>>>>>>> project. I give it a B-.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well I won't attack your religious beliefs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I expressed no religious beliefs, and it's good that you wouldn't
>>>>>> attack any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RNA World is a religious belief. Concensus and faith without
>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just watched some news story where a sort of computer robot was
>>>>>>> teaching kids...
>>>>>>> Again, an other science program today on TV about planets: all
>>>>>>> sort of basic chemistry was found
>>>>>>> on some moons and asteroids.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure. Chemicals are not life, as a junk box full of parts is not a
>>>>>> working electronic instrument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They did a testing in the lab and made RNA from just basic
>>>>>>> chemicals added some heat cycling and dry soak cycle
>>>>>>> like you will find on planets (sun, tides):
>>>>>>> https://phys.org/news/2022-03-insight-life.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we are just a chemical reaction really.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are an astoundingly complex structure that uses chemicals and
>>>>>> quantum mechanics. At least I am.
>>>>>
>>>> >from elementary particles to atoms to molecules to self-replicating
>>>> RNA (check)
>>>> >from RNA to DNA and ever more complex forms like us (check)
>>>>> Readup on Darwin
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Read up on the ways our cells operate and reproduce. It's astounding.
>>>>
>>>> Darwin was very smart, but he had no idea how cells work. I think that
>>>> if he had, he'd have been skeptical of random evolution and selection
>>>> as our origin.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And we are skeptical of your intelligent design stance. For that
>>> matter, there are quite a few blunders in living beings that an
>>> intelligent designer wouldn't have made.
>>
>> What you call my "stance" is one conjecture. I have others that you'd
>> approve of even less.
>>
>> Our cells are extraordinary, so their creation might have been an
>> extraordinary process. Refuse to think about possibilities if that's
>> your style.
>>
>> There are youtube videos about cell replication that are mind
>> boggling. It doesn't work until a zillion fiendshly complex things all
>> work, and the cell defines them for itself.
>>
>> Thinking about possibilities helps electronic design too.
>
> There are lots of chemists and biologists who think that self-
> replicating RNA is a credible step on the path towards evolving
> life. There is no need for the seeds of life to have come from
> elsewhere than earth, although that possibility is not excluded.
>
> It's remarkable that the reproduction of RNA and DNA still today
> can be made to work simply by cycling the temperature of the right
> mixture of chemicals, much like day and night cycles, as may well
> have happened on a young earth.
>
> To our current knowledge, actual intelligent designers are even
> less probable than random mutations producing a working cell. How
> did the intelligent designers come to be? They would have been
> subject to the same kind of constraints as life on earth, the
> right conditions and enough time.
>
> In fact, as long as we haven't found evidence of life elsewhere
> in the universe, we can't have any real idea of how common or rare
> it is. However, we *can* be pretty confident that *intelligent*
> life is at least a few million times less likely than just any
> life. On those grounds, I have less trouble believing in evolution
> than in intelligent design.
>
> Darwin's evolution provides a plausible path to the complex life
> we see today, without requiring intelligent or divine intervention.
> That's its strength. Postulating such intervention is superstition
> unless direct convincing evidence is found.
>
> As for the possible existence of alien civilisations with billions
> of years advance on us, I'm skeptical. Based on what we see on earth,
> I tend to think that technically advanced civilisations are unstable.
> I think they'll blow themselves up rather quickly, on cosmic time
> scales.

On a sunny day (Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:15:01 +0100) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <ut26kv$2e5s5$1@dont-email.me>:

....
>There are lots of chemists and biologists who think that self-
>replicating RNA is a credible step on the path towards evolving
>life. There is no need for the seeds of life to have come from
>elsewhere than earth, although that possibility is not excluded.
>
>It's remarkable that the reproduction of RNA and DNA still today
>can be made to work simply by cycling the temperature of the right
>mixture of chemicals, much like day and night cycles, as may well
>have happened on a young earth.
>
>To our current knowledge, actual intelligent designers are even
>less probable than random mutations producing a working cell. How
>did the intelligent designers come to be? They would have been
>subject to the same kind of constraints as life on earth, the
>right conditions and enough time.
>
>In fact, as long as we haven't found evidence of life elsewhere
>in the universe, we can't have any real idea of how common or rare
>it is.

http://www.gillevin.com/
partial quote from that site:
After years of study, in 1997 Dr. Levin concluded that the experiment had, indeed, detected life on the red planet,
and published his conclusion.
Subsequent findings of environmental conditions on Mars and research on organisms found in extreme environments on Earth have been consistent with his claim.

NASA is controlled by republicans and will NEVER be allowed to admit to have found life