🚀 go-pugleaf

To sci.bio readers: this is from a discussion going on in sci.space,
	about the current Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
	(SETI) projects. A big question in that field is the
	probability of (some form of) life evolving in conditions
	similar to those on primordial earth (it's generally believed
	that such conditions are reasonably common and that the
	evolution of intelligence is reasonably likely given life).
	I'd appreciate any comments from molecular biologists.

In article <STEINLY.92Oct26163921@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   In article <Bwr42C.K9B.1@cs.cmu.edu> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:

      [... stuff, including reference, about how 

      My guess for P(life evolving | suitable planet) is 1e-12.

   Well, I disagree, I'd put it at 0.1-1.0 (formally I'd actually
   put it at 0.5 if really pressed) but then we have very poor 
   sampling on that. 

Why so high? Can you get a molecular biologist to agree with you? The
old `amino-acid soup' theory has been largely discounted (on the
grounds of extreme improbability, funnily enough) and replaced by new
theories involving such things as self-reproducing systems based on
clay minerals. My claim is that this sort of system is still very
unlikely. The anthropic principle (in any form) says that our sample
(of one) tells us nothing without further analysis.

   Maybe further discussion on that line should move out of sci.space

Agreed, hence the cross-post. 

Nick
To: