The first is the telescope. The purpose of a telescope is to create a two-dimensional image by lensing radiated energy onto a two-dimensional map of the arrangement of the sources of energy. “Very Long Baseline Interferometry” (VLBI) is a mechanism for creating a telescope without the need to have a physical object the size of the lens. VLBI is often used with “radio telescopes”, to map two-dimensional images from space in the radio-frequency range. It is used because with TELESCOPES, there is a minimum required diameter of the lens to be able to map a certain RESOLUTION image. With optical telescopes one of the big advantages of a large lens is that you capture more signal (more light). A VLBI isn’t for capturing more signal. It does not capture signal in proportion to the area of the virtual lens. Its only size advantage is in the resolution it can provide.

The second is a parabolic dish antenna. A parabolic dish antenna does not map spatially spread out energy sources. Rather, its geometry is based on the assumption of a point energy source. Rather than focus the energy onto a 2-map, a parabolic dish antenna focuses the energy onto a hypothetical single point, where the electric field strength of that point can be measured. There is no spatial resolution involved — instead of a 2-dimensional spatial map, it generates a 1-dimensional time-varying signal — so there is no minimum theoretical size for any given application for parabolic dish antennas. There are two things the parabolic dish antenna does: 1) It provides directionality of reception — which is one technique of separating signal from noise, and 2) It provides amplification proportional to its surface area. However, neither of these functions require a dish at all. They are only one means of doing this, that are generally combined with other means, including electronic and digital processing. As a case in point, a GPS signal is about 50 watts. A GPS receiver picks up that signal from 15,000 miles away with an antenna with more than a couple square centimeters of area. According to the article, no such thing should be possible. It should also be pointed out that the very weak GPS signal is buried in noise many orders of magnitude more powerful than the signal, yet the signal is retrieved — and with very small and inexpensive equipment. Of course it is more difficult to lock on to a signal if you don’t know what you’re looking for, but one thing that is absolutely NOT required is a planet sized dish. All a large dish would accomplish is amplification, which is just as easily done electronically.

Some of the confusion no doubt arrises from the fact that large parabolic dish antennas are regularly referred to as “radio telescopes”. This probably arose from the fact that these antennas are used in arrays to form VLBI radio telescopes, which actually are telescopes. However, they are telescopes constructed from an array of dish antennas. They are not really — as the wikipedia page says for example — “telescopes constructed from an array of smaller telescopes”.

SUMMARY: Dish antennas and telescopes — both round things used to look up in the sky, but totally different in purpose. Telescopes have required theoretical sizes for resolving small things far away. Dish antenna size determines its amplification, but there is no theoretical minimum for a given signal strength; amplification not done by the dish can be done by the electronics.

If their are tens of millions of planets that will produce intelligent life at some point in their existence add to that great odds against prospect the fact that that this intelligent life time line would have to exist simultaneously to earths intelligent life existence. The little veins on that blade of grass on that massive golf fairway would have to match up exactly with that of another.

I like that there is a difference in opinion, however, a lot of what was said has nothing to do with the article. Can we keep it slightly more relevant? I am waiting for Alan to impose a Character Limit on these posts.

Yet if you still feel so inclined to argue, may I suggest a duel to the death? Or perhaps First Blood drawn from the torso?

[quote]dtaylor said: “Every single test [of the "primordial soup" idea] has failed miserably. We have never once observed life forming randomly from non-life. We haven’t even been able to cause it to happen with stacked odds and perfect conditions in a lab.[/quote]Wrong. As has been noted, we haven’t been trying to achieve “life from non-life”…at least, not yet. Not yet, because we don’t know enough about the processes. Yet. We have not “stacked the odds”—not any more than the early Earth’s environment did. What we have done is estimate the likely chemical and energic components of that early environment; we have never had “perfect” conditions in the lab. We have seen that certain biologic precursor molecules are fairly easy to form in such an environment—and even in environments much less suitable-seeming. Various interesting organic molecules are observed in the cold, dispersed, near-vacuum environments of interstellar molecular clouds, for instance.

[quote]good science does not proceed to call the models “fact” or “law”. Which is how abiogenesis is taught in most high schools and colleges today.[/quote]If it is taught carelessly, it may be called “law”. If it is taught properly—and you are strongly encouraged to give your support to, say, your local schools in this—it is called “the best fit, so far, to the evidence gathered, so far”. You note “the consistency of the failure of the tests”—please show us even one test of creationist notions that has proven anything!

[quote]Antiobiotic resistant strains of bacteria existed before the discovery of antibiotics as confirmed by ice core samples.[/quote]I suppose that you mean that ancient bacteria have been found that had the ability to resist modern antibiotics. So what? It would have been fairly easy for some of such bacteria to encounter, say, an ancient Penicillium mold or one of the tetracycline-producing fungi. It doesn’t have to have happened only once. And, do these ice-core bacteria have the ability to resist nearly all modern antibiotics, as (disturbingly) certain Staphylococci, and certain Tuberculosis bacteria, do? These multiply-resistant strains definitely did not exist (in significant numbers, at least) 100 years ago. But now that there are various antibiotics in use, some of the bacteria end up resistant to them. Where did all this “new information” come from, then?

[quote]There are viruses which are said to have “improved” through mutation, but the mutations are all information decreasing.[/quote]Categoric statements such as this are essentially useless without supporting information. Back up your claims or abandon them.
(Besides, isn’t a mutation that allows a virus to attack a previously immune host an “improvement” from the point of view of the virus?)

[quote]The virus is essentially de-evolving, becoming less specific, thereby entering more hosts. That’s fine for now, but eventually the genome would de-evolve to the point where it self destructs.[/quote]And you know this—how? You are sure that some degree of simplification will necessarily lead to increasing simplification, proceeding inexorably to ruin? You are invited to prove it. (“Put up pr shut up”, as the saying goes.)

[quote]Mutations in higher forms are invariably harmful.[/quote]Wrong. See above, and consider, say, mosquitoes that acquired resistance to DDT. (I consider metazoans, including mosquitoes, to be “higher life forms”—definitely “higher” than protozoa and the like.)

[quote]No, you are the one who hasn’t been paying attention. Don’t feel bad, most people completely miss this subtle yet critical point[/quote]We’re not feeling bad. We would advise you, however, to avoid condescension in your replies. (If you really want to turn an audience against you, insult them.)

[quote]You want to use models proven false? Is that science?[/quote]No, we don’t want to use models proven false. (Don’t be disingenuous, either.) When models are proven inadequate (or just plain wrong), they are abandoned by (proper) scientists. Other models are then put in their place, and subjected to the same kind of skeptical testing to see if they’re any better.

[quote][quote]Silverhill said: “”The odds of rolling a 7, with fair dice, are 1 in 6. The odds of rolling a 7, with loaded dice, can be much lower—or much higher.
Atoms and molecules are similar to loaded dice! That is, certain combinations have a tendency to happen, and a system with a tendency is not at all random.”[/quote]dtaylor said: “No, they’re not. The “certain combinations” you refer to are not any where near a living, reproducing machine. You are orders of magnitude away from such a thing.[/quote]And so what? You have to start at the bottom, here. And at the bottom you find molecules with a tendency to combine.

[quote]It’s like saying that gasoline has a tendency to burn, so if you throw some gas and some iron into a pit along with a match, you should get a car engine.[/quote]No, it’s not like saying such a thing, because saying such a thing is stupid. It’s actually like saying that if you throw together some gasoline, some iron, some brass, various plastics, some sulfuric acid, some lead, some lead oxide, some copper, some latex, some sulfur, some carbon black, some aluminum, various hydraulic fluids, some water, various oils and greases, some tools, some people trained in the derivation and application of these objects and substances, various kinds of energy, et-freakin’-cetera, you’ll get a car. Simplifying it the way you did is disingenuous at best, inexcusably ignorant at worst.

[quote](You respect [Golay] so little that you believe his equations didn’t take into account the highest order of building blocks which form naturally?)[/quote]You respect Golay so much that you didn’t take into account the fact that he didn’t know what he was doing (as shown above by HiEv)?

[quote]you need to spend more time studying cells. A cell actively works in ways which are against the tendencies you refer to.[/quote]Au contraire, mon ami. Cells are strongly contra-entropic in their activities, using those tendencies to assist them in creating order out of chaos.
Speaking of creating order, consider also a crystal. Just a plain, inert, very highly ordered structure that can easily arise from a highly disordered state (a solution)…with the application of the right amount of energy, in the right way. Please notice the parallel here.

[quote]Oh, OK…I’m just “misled”.[/quote]Definitely! But there’s help for that. Bring an open mind with you; you’ll need it.

[quote]A cell would self destruct before it finished falling together by random chance.[/quote]Perhaps so. It’s a good thing that random chance was not nearly so much involved as you want to think.

[quote]We would just have to look for evidence that resembles what we would expect if life was created. Features, behaviors, or relationships which could not have come together by chance.[/quote]And by what criteria, exactly, would you be able to judge this? Do you have some independent experience as a creator-of-life, so that you would be a qualified judge? Or, failing that, do you have some unimpeachable authority upon whose judgment you could rely? (Don’t bring in a god, here. Not when there is so much uncertainty involved with the alleged information about, or from, such an entity.)

[quote]But I’m sticking to a strict interpretation of science:[/quote]Alas, you are doing no such thing, and neither are some of your sources.