Neil DeGrasse Tyson: ET and DNA

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: mryang
a reply to: Scdfa

Sorry for the mispelling. I know it's not really an excuse but,

1. I'm not native english
2. I thought the subject was more important than technicalities

But, I drop this. You win.

I apologize, mryang, I just went for a joke, but it wasn't funny. Your English is far better than my second language. Please continue to post, I will be supportive.

I did feel that the conversation was drifting off the topic, but I should have made that point in a less snarky way.

I read it again and as a matter of fact, it was kind of funny

a reply to: mryang

So mryang, what is your opinion on alien contact, are aliens here? do some ufos contain aliens?

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: mryang

So mryang, what is your opinion on alien contact, are aliens here? do some ufos contain aliens?

My main interest is actually ET and DNA, that's how I got to this forum in the first place and this thread in particular.

Now, I reason like this:

The most advanced "thing" on this planet (as perceived by a human) is DNA. Three billion "letters" of digitally written precision code with built in compiler, error-check and multiple redundancy functions, that compares to at least 1 Gb of raw text data uncompressed and furthermore is transposable has conditional compiling and multi-processing capability that far surpasses any written code built by man, is not "natural" and doesn't come out of an acid soup with proteins no matter how long time you stir it.

If stranded people want to show a sign in nature to rescue-team in order to be found, SOS-regulation say that one has to make three equally long and parallel lines in the forest (or similar 3 items), beach or desert or wherever you are because this is not natural and hence an evidence of an intelligence wanting help. DNA is way beyond those three lines. In fact, it makes the three lines and expanding it with an order of 9. Any intelligent being arguing that this was the result of natural evolution is lying to my face and knows it.

Conclusion: DNA is not made by evolution but a distinct coded sequence with a specific purpose.

The existence and design of DNA indicates that:

1. Humans (or at least our bodies) are programmed (and all living organisms known to man)
2. "Something" programmed all living things
3. "Something" is far superior in intellect than humans
4. "Something" is invisible to us and don't want to be known, seen, or noticed
5. "Something" created humans for a reason and purpose, yet unknown
6. Because "Something" don't want to be seen, there is also a possibility that we are intentionally kept in the dark and "taught" things step by step without hurting us too much, similar to a beginner race car driver is not given a F1 car the first day of practice. Hence, "Something" could be involved in our daily life in a far deeper way than we can perceive and understand. (Wild speculation...)

Furthermore;

7. If "Something" created humans with 9 million other species on this planet, there is a possibility that "Something" can create DNA (and life) on other worlds beyond ours
8. ...a world with life that is far superior earth
9. ...worlds with life that has existed for eons.

So if someone say they have seen a kind of craft with anti gravity propulsion - I reason that no matter if it is true or not, DNA is still more advanced. The possibility of the existence of such a craft is therefore highly likely.

originally posted by: mryang
a reply to: Scdfa

Sorry for the mispelling. I know it's not really an excuse but,

1. I'm not native english
2. I thought the subject was more important than technicalities

But, I drop this. You win.

No, he still loses, as does tanka.

And the subject is more important than petty spelling and grammar corrections... but that's what you can expect from some members when you question their beliefs.

originally posted by: mryang
a reply to: tanka418

Neil Tyson mentioned eye witness testimony can never be used as a PROOF.
You stated that you can PROVE a tree makes a sound when falling without being there. I object to this. It is impossible to PROVE this.

understand, that this wee bit requires us t remain firmly in this world. So, the kinds of worlds, with vacuum chambers large enough for a forest, or forests full of sound absorbing material, quite simple do not exist, as can be evidenced by world history.

Actually I tend to object to this kind of "stalling" tactic...it is way too much like the thinking, and immature logic being used by even highly intelligent younglings. I have a 20 yo step-son who is a prime example... or we can look at some of the more reptile inclined here at ATS. That kind of logic has no place here.

It is necessary to understand what proof is,,,and "proof" is little more than compelling evidence. And, by the way, "proof" works exactly the same way if I'm in a court room or a laboratory. further, the "rules" of evidence are very much the same.

Mr. Tyson and others like to do that...claim that "eyewitness testimony" is invalid. Yet, as I've already pointed out, science relies heavily o "empirical observation"...that is another way of saying "eyewitness". What tends to make "empirical observation" more valuable is that in science they are usually observing a repeatable event. In the real world there are many events that quite simply, never repeat. Are we to throw out such events as spurious? Can we learn nothing from them?

Again, in the real world, that doesn't happen...even science finds ways of learning about the on-repeatable event. Now we find people here, famous "scientist" actors, stating that without question, these non-repeatable events contain no data, and any observations are worthless. I do truly hope that you understand that this is quite simply hypocrisy. It is the kind of attitude that turns people away from science, and to their own ill-conceived conclusions, based on broken logic.

And that lead to what we see today in many UFO/ET circles.

What you have is a HYPOTHESIS that the tree "should" make a sound when it hits the ground. You can test this and build a scenario where the tree do make a sound but it's not even a valid theory and far from a PROOF. For example, it is easy to make another experiment where a tree falls without making any sound (sound absorbing material, vacuum-chamber, holographic video, so forth). So there is indisputable evidence that a tree actually can fall silent, making your claim totally worthless - possibly even in the court of law.

Actually there would be one very important difference in these two scenarios...in the first, where I'm showing that a tree would indeed make a sound; I don't have to construct anything, I only need a NATURAL forest to illustrate my hypothesis. In the other; I am required to construct some sort of apparatus specifically designed to remove the possibility of "sound"...something that doesn't typically exist in nature, especially in that context. AND, since I had to specifically remove the probability of sound, it becomes a false experiment, and the hypothesis is show to be false.

Remember, we already know that in a natural world, IF two sticks strike each other they make a sound. This can be illustrated quite easily with any mathematical approach to this. We can verify, via experiment that two sticks striking each other make a sound. The same holds for that stick striking the Earth...different sound though.

If you want to use the word PROOF for something else - a meaning that is not within the general community, then please present that FIRST and the rest of us can follow your lingo.

I think I've already done that...see above...

As for evidence; I've already rendered a definition for that as well; Evidence is ay data relating to an event or object.

I don't want to go into some dick-measuring about spelling, bla, bla - I just want to present my view of what is a proof and not. And I like to have a nice tone to the conversation. If you like aggressive arguments, cursing, keyboard wars, I'm the wrong guy for it.

Don't need to measure Dicks over this; my old keyboard will beat you every time, especially IF I don't pay close attention.
A note on the "cursing"; there must be an issue with definition; I haven't "Cursed"...IF you think that using the term "horses..." is cursing; then your opinion is different than mine...I do not consider that "cursing", more like expressive communication.

originally posted by: mryang

Conclusion: DNA is not made by evolution but a distinct coded sequence with a specific purpose.

I tend to disagree. I will state that DNA IS a result of evolution...and I'm not lying,

If we were talking about DNA being present in a world where evolution was a random process, than you would be correct, but, evolution is not a random process...the fact that we are here arguing this is ample evidence.

And a note on "how" advanced ET is; It is more probable that ET is not more advance, or is only slightly more advanced than Terrestrials. This can be evidenced by the nature of the "flying" machines ET has used in the past.

For instance, in ancient India, Sumer, Egypt; Et used what is termed a "viamana"...According to texts and legends frm ancient India; these craft were chemical powered.

In the middle ages; UFO reports were still of machines that are chemical powered. It hasn't been until modern times that ET has had the "advanced" machines that he is reported to have. My take on that; ET is not so advanced.

By the way...what's your take on this: www.hpcc-space.de...

It might seem that ET isn't advanced at all...

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: mryang
a reply to: Scdfa

Sorry for the mispelling. I know it's not really an excuse but,

1. I'm not native english
2. I thought the subject was more important than technicalities

But, I drop this. You win.

No, he still loses, as does tanka.

And the subject is more important than petty spelling and grammar corrections... but that's what you can expect from some members when you question their beliefs.

I don't disagree with mryang at all, his recent posts have been insightful, unlike this one.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: mryang

Conclusion: DNA is not made by evolution but a distinct coded sequence with a specific purpose.

I tend to disagree. I will state that DNA IS a result of evolution...and I'm not lying,

If we were talking about DNA being present in a world where evolution was a random process, than you would be correct, but, evolution is not a random process...the fact that we are here arguing this is ample evidence.

1. If DNA evolution is "not a random process" then it must be an intentional process - Agree?
2. If DNA evolution is an intentional process - It is also an intelligent process - Agree?
3. If DNA evolution is an intelligent process - it must be an intelligence waaaaay beyond humans (because "it" can create humans and humans can't create humans) - Agree?

Then, DNA = Result of Intelligent Design and we are in agreement.

originally posted by: mryang

1. If DNA evolution is "not a random process" then it must be an intentional process - Agree?

No.

Is the Fibonacci sequence of numbers random? No...they certainly are not. The lack of randomness does not imply the existence of intent.

2. If DNA evolution is an intentional process - It is also an intelligent process - Agree?

No...Intent does not imply intelligence.

3. If DNA evolution is an intelligent process - it must be an intelligence waaaaay beyond humans (because "it" can create humans and humans can't create humans) - Agree?

Then, DNA = Result of Intelligent Design and we are in agreement.

Again, No...Who said Humans can't create Humans...where did you come from?

Consider:

There are 20 different amino acids common in living systems. Thus the number of different chains [141 amino acids long] is 20E141, or roughly 10E183. If 5 billion years ago, as many as 1040 amino-acid–molecule generators, each producing a different randomly chosen 141–amino-acid sequence one billion times per second, began generating sequences, then at the present point in time only about 1066 sequences would have been generated. Thus the probability that human alpha hemoglobin would have been produced is about 10E66 ÷ 10E183 = 10E–117, a fantastically small number.

-- www.dhbailey.com...

That wee bit of stuff was randomly chosen from the results of a goggle search...It shows that it would be quite impossible for Human, or indeed any, DNA to be produced at random, yet, there exists nothing to suggest that any of this is anything other than a spontaneous event. Which indicates that some constructs / collections are significantly more probable that One might think, and certainly beat the Odds in respect to the simple calculations above. Yet, those simple calculations remain valid.

There was a "science" program on Television a while back (history or science channel, don't remember which) where they tried to illustrate this. Basically, the production of virtually any known life form should not have happened in the 13 billion years that the Universe has existed...yet here we are.

And with all of that...there is still no indication of intelligence behind the beginnings of evolution...the reality is that somehow, not by intelligent design, the deck got stacked in our favor. What sciences has found is that certain key molecules are far more probable than others, it is this that has provided the abundance of life in the cosmos. Many of these "key" molecules are so abundant in the cosmos that they exist free in inter - stellar / planetary / galactic space. Thus providing the ability of "living" things to be created, and evolve wherever / whenever conditions are right. And those conditions are almost everywhere...

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Anyone experiencing multiple abductions from their bedroom for example could and should set up a camcorder to record themselves while they sleep. If they have an abduction experience, review the tape and see if it shows anything. This would be some evidence beyond human perception and would be given more weight than human perception. That's what Tyson is saying in the UFO video that we need some other kind of evidence,

Yes, because the aliens are not very bright, and would be unable to recognize any technology as highly advanced as a camcorder. Why, they'd probably think it was sorcery, or some form of magic. They might just fall to their alien knees right there and worship that shiny camcorder as a god. Then we got 'em!

In all fairness to Arbitrageur, this has been attempted.

Oh my, I must admit I'm following all your replies Scdfa, because it's just pure fun the way you put it. Like the quote before. Simply brilliant. I could actually 'see' the little greys praying to the camcorder. Man, just f** hilarious.

Now, I continue my reading.

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Anyone experiencing multiple abductions from their bedroom for example could and should set up a camcorder to record themselves while they sleep. If they have an abduction experience, review the tape and see if it shows anything. This would be some evidence beyond human perception and would be given more weight than human perception. That's what Tyson is saying in the UFO video that we need some other kind of evidence,

Yes, because the aliens are not very bright, and would be unable to recognize any technology as highly advanced as a camcorder. Why, they'd probably think it was sorcery, or some form of magic. They might just fall to their alien knees right there and worship that shiny camcorder as a god. Then we got 'em!

In all fairness to Arbitrageur, this has been attempted.

Oh my, I must admit I'm following all your replies Scdfa, because it's just pure fun the way you put it. Like the quote before. Simply brilliant. I could actually 'see' the little greys praying to the camcorder. Man, just f** hilarious.

Now, I continue my reading.

Thanks, JackHill, very nice to know someone appreciates my humor!

Be sure to give me a lot of stars, if you think of it!

I did standup comedy for a decade, professionally, I got to work with a lot of the big comedians of the 1980s; Jerry Seinfeld, Dennis Leary, Gilbert Gottfried, etc.
I take UFOs very seriously, of course, but it is hard to take some of these posters seriously, sometimes a little humor helps put perspective on a truly absurd post.

Hope to hear from you again, JackHill!

You have to admit, Neil is the funniest.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
I really don't like this video of Tyson. He uses hugely overpowering rhetoric to get his opinion across as if there was no other way to see things. He tries to bamboozle the audience with LOUDNESS. He completely overplays the glitches in our abilities to perceive things and implies our brains are so ossified that we can't see what we are looking at. He dismisses witness testimony out of hand and implies that only scientific evidence can address this issue. Incredibly narrow-minded and one dimensional thinking here.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Psychological trauma could be from something purely psychological.

But what is psychological? What is the psyche? It greatly amuses me to hear people like Freud talking in abstractions about something that is clearly not abstract. They treat the psyche as if it was no different than the abstractions they ... abstract from it. They seem content to talk about it abstractly without asking what it is.

a reply to: EnPassant

But what is psychological? What is the psyche? It greatly amuses me to hear people like Freud talking in abstractions about something that is clearly not abstract. They treat the psyche as if it was no different than the abstractions they ... abstract from it. They seem content to talk about it abstractly without asking what it is.

I agree with you. I think you know that on some level. I have a background in psychology and I also have a background in being a bit of a Psychonaut. Freud basically babbled. Some of his theories stuck but for the most part, he just rambled on about stuff. There was never any science to back him up. Did you know that all of his work was written while he was on coc aine?
en.wikipedia.org...

Other viewpoints include that of Hans Eysenck, who believes that Freud set back the study of psychology and psychiatry "by something like fifty years or more",[162] and that of Malcolm Macmillan, who concluded that "Freud's method is not capable of yielding objective data about mental processes".[163] Morris Eagle states that it has been "demonstrated quite conclusively that because of the epistemologically contaminated status of clinical data derived from the clinical situation, such data have questionable probative value in the testing of psychoanalytic hypotheses".[164] Richard Webster considers psychoanalysis perhaps the most complex and successful pseudoscience in history.[165]

To me psychology is the study of how people perceive the world and how they behave subconsciously. Not necessarily the study of reality. Psychological trauma could be caused by objective reality or it could be caused by something not in objective reality. And yes, if we keep peeling back and redefining what "objective" reality is, we may agree that dreams are real at some point. I have no problem with that.

a reply to: Scdfa

I got to work with a lot of the big comedians of the 1980s; Jerry Seinfeld

That didn't go so well for some. not really something to brag about

see: "Michael Richards Spews Racial Hate -- Kramer Racist Rant" on youtube

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I used to read R. D. Laing. He went on a lecture tour of the states in the 70s and basically said that people don't need to be analysed, they need practical help and, as a result, psychiatry was never the same in the U.S. after that.

wow my thread is still going! who woulda thunk it

originally posted by: Scdfa

I did standup comedy for a decade, professionally,

Thank God for Ramen noodles, huh?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Did you know that all of his work was written while he was on coc aine?
en.wikipedia.org...

Yes I knew he was on C but did not know he did all his work while on it. I believe he was so terrified of his peers he had to get all C'd up before meeting with them.