- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
I do not want to stop asking. I do not ask to stop wanting.
Posted by: UK Dark Wolf360
Posted by: Haloroach
Posted by: UK Dark Wolf360
Posted by: Recon Number 54
Right now, with 1 out of 8 planets in the solar system known to harbor life, we only have a single point of data and cannot draw many conclusions or inferences from it.
If however, life that is definitively shown to be non-terran and/or completely unrelated to Terran life (based on genetics or even using something other than DNA to replicate and carry information) within our solar system? Then the data shows (at least with a very small sample) that life has occurred independently on more than 1 location in this system alone?
That DRAMATICALLY influences two factors in the Drake Equation, both Ne and Fl.
The Drake Equation is pretty much useless, except for science fiction writers. The variables themselves within the equation should give multiple reasons why it's uselessness is self-explanatory. It is for sensationalists (especially exaggerated by the media) not real scientists such as astrobiologists and the like.
Are you implying science fiction writers cannot be "real scientists"?
Though I agree with your sensationalist comment.
Nope, that is not what I said or implied at all. However science fiction writers are writing just that - fiction, it should not be taken as a reliable source for scientific knowledge. Most of my colleagues and other scientists I know agree that the Drake Equation is pretty useless given the vagueness and pointlessness of many of the variables involved (not to mention that it has not been tested, for obvious reasons, and no real mathematical derivations were done to reach the result).
My mistake then. I'm just not myself today. I apologize.