Nobel Prize winner, Francis Crick ,advanced civilisation transported seeds of life in a spacecraft

I think that we are all missing the most genius aspect of this video, that being the quick insert of Heidi Montag's image at the mention of "junk DNA"

[edit on 30-1-2010 by kleverone]

reply to post by DoomsdayRex



I was never trying to prove you wrong and I'm not desparate. Stop projecting what YOU do to people on to me.
And if you don't understand the meanings behind what I've "cut and paste" then that's fine by me.

I didn't know that "cutting and pasting" was such a serious offense on the ATS. I didn't know that ! I can't believe all the people on this site who committ that offense on such a consistent basis!

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


You say potato, I say potato. (wait, that doesn't work so well in a text-format)

Anyhow, I read it a bit differently, but it appears we don't really disagree.

Neat story. I always like to hear the direct panspermia ideas. I personally feel that they are at least somewhat true.

reply to post by JayinAR



Excellent point, Jay, one of many you have made on this thread.
Thanks .

Don't be so hasty to dismiss a Nobel Prize winner when he is expressing thoughts on the field he is an expert in. If one of the early founders of genetic research has an opinion to offer after a lifetime of research we can at least give him a moments reflection.

The idea that our DNA is too homogenous is a valid arguement; The Miller / Urey experiment mentioned showed in 1953 that amino acids will form simply because the ingredients including a spark are present. The experiment was recreated in 2008 with the same results.

A re-analysis of some of the original samples from the 50's showed that the original experiment was actually more productive then thought, only the instruments weren't advanced enough to detect everything.

*
Where DNA formation in it's early stages is nothing more than pure chemistry, there should be multiple 'styles' based on the chemical properties of the amino acids involved.

Although there are several possible reasons for why there is only one type of DNA on Earth, the most fantastic to me is that it may be DNA can only form in one way. Something we won't know until we have a sample from an alien lifeform.

Even if ET didn't create us, we might still be related
*

Right now there is a researcher at MIT (I believe) who has created 'alien cells' by placing the raw chemical materials needed for life into a drop of oil (I wish I could give more data but I saw this before I needed to keep records for the rest of you).

Check out the 'The Klerksdorp Spheres', an Oopart from South Africa...

The Klerksdorp Spheres (about halfway down page)

If we find a pale blue world tomorrow the easiest way for us to start terraforming it is to do exactly what Mr. Crick speculates may have happened here.

EDIT:

Left out my point for the Miller/Urey experiment...** indicates what was added.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by [davinci]]

reply to post by Damian-007


There are only three Generations that can give you answers. Yours, your parents or your grandparents.

These are the only living accounts that can be truly told. Anything older then three generations, was agreed upon by the that 2nd and 3rd generation to tell the first.

How did life start on earth? How about, How does life start?

I offer this explanation...



Peace

Originally posted by [davinci]
Don't be so hasty to dismiss a Nobel Prize winner when he is expressing thoughts on the field he is an expert in. If one of the early founders of genetic research has an opinion to offer after a lifetime of research we can at least give him a moments reflection.

I understand why Crick found it odd that life on Earth was so "non-varied" at the chemical level -- and I understand he has the knowledge and understanding to back up that doubt.

However, Francis Crick was not an expert in the field of extremophiles. He may have too easily dismissed the idea that life may have been accidentally carried to Earth in a comet or asteroid.

That's all I'm saying. Crick had not done enough research in the field of extremophiles to dismiss the idea of accidental panspermia as "unlikely".

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

You say potato, I say potato. (wait, that doesn't work so well in a text-format)

pot ā to -- pot ah to



[edit on 1/30/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
It is pure speculation on his part. As it says above: ...the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. I would go so far as to say it is non-existent. His claimed evidence is so weak as to be stillborn. That all life on Earth shares the same basic DNA structure doesn't tell us anything other all life on Earth shares the same DNA structure.

After reading your signature quote, I wonder if you still believe what it says. I am responding to you here because it is way too common for people here on ATS to try and cram their own speculation into a form that tries to sound scientific. Let's take a look at your obviously biased response:

"It is pure speculation on his part." So is biogenesis from a primordial soup, which is really quite weak when looked at closely and critically. At least these scientists are honest enough to admit that the evidence is lacking for establishing a probability. Maybe you should be just as honest. Lacking evidence does not imply a weak or strong probability. In only admits that the evidence is lacking, which means you must remain neutral if you are to remain objective.

"I would go so far as to say it is non-existent." That would be going TOO FAR, and it reveals your non-scientific mindset here. Science has nothing at all to do with your BELIEFS and it has nothing to do with your predisposition. Why would YOU go so far? What is the basis for you going beyond what the theory provides? This guy's theory provides AN explanation and there is no evidence to either prove or disprove the theory. If you can't disprove it, you can't say it is non-existent... not with any legitimacy.

On a similar note, I just love the way so many of the ATS people throw around terms like "in all likelihood" or "most probably" and in effect what they are doing is saying that the position which is most likely just happens to be the position they already agree with. "I believe it, so it must be most likely." Excuse me, but unless you have done a thorough statistical analysis, you have no business using terms like "probably" or "likely." That is just one type of propaganda technique, trying to convince people that some kind of scientific statistical analysis has been done, when in fact, it has not.

So, please stop trying to sound scientific, when in fact you only sharing your opinion. Here is a much more honest way of saying what you said:

"It is pure speculation on his part, but then again, if I am totally honest, my beliefs are also pure speculation. As it says above: ...the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. Even though at this point it could either be likely or unlikely, my pure speculative belief is that it is non-existent. His claimed evidence is so weak as to be stillborn, but then again, so is the common evolutionary theory of biogenesis. That all life on Earth shares the same basic DNA structure doesn't tell ME anything other than all life on Earth shares the same DNA structure, but that's because my presupposition and paradigm will not allow me to see any supposed connection."

I long for the day when people can leave their personal beliefs out of science, and they can just go where the evidence takes them... and if the evidence is lacking, they remain open to all possibilities, regardless of any predisposed sense of probability.

The purest art and mastery of the true scientist is to remain as open-minded as possible, and for as long as possible. Working theories can certainly be formulated, but they must be strongly labeled as such, and never permitted to descend into the dark depths of dogmatism.

When mankind can learn to do this, not only will we advance much more quickly, but we will also become more peaceful.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
Speculation!!!!!!!!!!!
Scientific theory is speculation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The word is derived from a Greek word meaning speculation!!!!!!!
Words, words, words. Shakespeare said.
Why do you think he said that?
Because people don't know the meaning of them.

Ever hear of an Etymological Fallacy?

Yes I have. I took linguistics last year . I'm taking it this year as well, but this time it's in Spanish.

Here's a quote from the very site you thought was proving your point

"The etymological fallacy holds, erroneously, that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, based on a mistaken idea concerning the etymology of words.[1]"

It does exist, yes, I know that, but it's not applicable in every case and most definitely not in this one.

An applicable example would be the word "loser". It used to mean "someone who lost something" but is now used in a very different context . It could be used to apply to someone who thinks that speculation has no place at all in the forming of a theory.
Example, "That loser thinks that speculation has no part in the formation of scientific theory. "

You do know that Francis Crick helped discover DNA, and that he found out about it while on a massive '___' trip, right? This fellow dropped more acid than a leaking energizer battery, im pretty sure if one were to have had an intimate conversation with him, we would hear of all kinds of fantastical theories which he believed.

i could see us being created, engineered, what have you, and i could also see us as being evolved beings. Either way, we are here, and we have reached the stage where we can ponder our origins. That in itself is amazing.

We are also at the stage where we can drop microtabs and watch the unspiraling of the universe, which is amazing, but not quite as amazing as being able to synthetically extract said chemical from the plants our ancestors used to consume because Gods told them to.

i have no point, i dont know why i posted. Yes it took me this long to figure out i have no point. im going to hit the reply button anyway.

love and peace

Originally posted by M157yD4wn

i have no point, i dont know why i posted. Yes it took me this long to figure out i have no point. im going to hit the reply button anyway.

love and peace

LOL. I starred you because you made me laugh and because, while your point may be rather vaporous, you said some interesting things

Yours is my "post of the day". LOL

reply to post by downisreallyup


I couldn't possibly agree with what you had to say strongly enough.
Thanks, you just stated everything I was trying to say earlier much more consicely and eloquently.

It is humorous to watch someone of that frame of reference call someone else out on an appeal to authority.
And then have the stones to ask me if I even know what such an appeal means.

Laughable really.

Edit...
To Dragon's Music:


Edit again...
Jesus, I'm still laughing at that one. And with that, I've got to go. Time to watch a movie with the children. You guys have fun.


[edit on 30-1-2010 by JayinAR]

[edit on 30-1-2010 by JayinAR]

don't know if this has been mentioned but I thought I'd just bring up one small point. The popular definition of a theory and the scientific definition are not the same. A hypothesis is an educated guess, as I'm sure you all know. A theory is a body of well tested evidence. So in this case directed panspermia may be considered a hypothesis, but certainly not a theory.
Even so, there are many interesting implications within ancient cultures which lends credence to the idea, certainly an interesting concept to say the least.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
How is Crick's speculation any different?

They are making an appeal to authority. The speculation does not carry extra weight because of the letters after Crick's name or the awards he's won.

Spoken like a true envious neophyte. Of course his background gives him more credibility. Here's an example:

Let's say you get onto a 747 airliner and you see the Captain talking with some people. You hear the Captain say that the wings of the aircraft can be bent upwards to touch each other without breaking, and you, being doubtful of such a claim, say "That is totally ridiculous!" So then the people ask you if you are a pilot or aeronautical engineer, to which you must admit "no." But then you say "Hey, just because that pilot there has certain ratings after his name, that doesn't give any more credence to his wild claims," at which point all the people on the plane start laughing at you.

The fact is, the esteemed Nobel prize winner did not gain such an honor by being an ignorant fool. His knowledge of science and what is possible in his field of expertise is precisely better than yours and most other people's, otherwise the degrees and awards mean nothing... but they do mean something, exactly how the airline pilot's ratings mean something.

Please stop thinking like a child and show some respect where respect is do. I say that because you obviously have a child's view of what speculation actually is. Let's consult a dictionary, shall we:

1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.
2. a single instance or process of consideration.
3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.
4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.
5. engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering the chance of large gains, esp. trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from changes in the market price.
6. a speculative commercial venture or undertaking.

And it's synonyms are:

supposition, view, theory, hypothesis.

To call something speculation says nothing about the quality of the speculation. That must be judged by the qualifications of the person making the speculation. There are some people who speculate on investments and they make a bloody fortune. There are others who speculate with no wisdom and they lose their shirts.

A man who has studied the very essence of life for HIS entire life MAY... just MAY... have some insights into the subject... insights that you lack, and yet because of arrogance, you assume that he must be wrong, instead of the MORE LIKELY case, which is that you are wrong for making such a strong and uninformed conclusion.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
How is Crick's speculation any different?

They are making an appeal to authority. The speculation does not carry extra weight because of the letters after Crick's name or the awards he's won.

I have to agree that you and others attempting to counter the OP seem to be throwing around terms like "appeal to authority" and "logical fallacy" without actually understanding what they mean.

It would only be an "appeal to authority" as a logical fallacy if the OP was insisting that a certain theory was definitely true because someone in authority said so.

They didn't. So you were wrong to claim it was an "appeal to authority" (unless you were responding to another post I'm unaware of).

What threads like this are usually doing is simply countering the false notion that science and scientists are opposed to the ETH by providing evidence that, in fact, many eminent scientists do accept the ETH as valid. They aren't insisting by this that any theory is proven, but merely that they are valid and are recognized as such by many well respected scientists, and therefore, to portray the ETH and UFOlogy as somehow opposed to science and intelligent rational thought - as many 'skeptics' suggest - is quite wrong.

The OP is pointing out that the words of scientists such as Crick certainly do lend credibility, but they never claimed they established truth.

Consequently, this is not at all the same as the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.



[edit on 30-1-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by anonymousstranger
don't know if this has been mentioned but I thought I'd just bring up one small point. The popular definition of a theory and the scientific definition are not the same. A hypothesis is an educated guess, as I'm sure you all know. A theory is a body of well tested evidence. So in this case directed panspermia may be considered a hypothesis, but certainly not a theory.
Even so, there are many interesting implications within ancient cultures which lends credence to the idea, certainly an interesting concept to say the least.

I direct you to a very good article on THEORIES, so as to gain an even more complete understanding of the distinctions between different classes of theories:

Article on Theories

It is interesting to note that the very word THEORY itself is considered to originate from the Greek word "THEORIA" which means:

CONTEMPLATION, SPECULATION

Anyhow, the article is interesting.

This documentary may lend credence to the theory.
veehd.com...

Originally posted by Malcram
The OP is pointing out that the words of scientists such as Crick certainly do lend credibility, but they never claimed they established truth...

I agree that Crick's idea about the chemistry of life on Earth not having enough variety holds some credibility; however, as I said in another post, I disagree with his assertion that it is unlikely that Earth could have been accidentally seeded with life is a credible one.

I'm not an expert, but from what I know, the idea that life came to Earth on a Comet or asteroid is NOT improbable.

Like I said before, Crick was not an expert in extromophiles, therefore I don't think he is in the position to say that the accidental seeding of life on Earth is unlikely.

To believe Crick when he said that "accidental seeding was unlikely" just because he knew a lot about DNA IS appealing to authority. He was not in a position to claim that it is unlikely for extremophiles to come to earth in a comet or asteroid. He didn't know enough about extremophiles for his idea about them to have any credence.


[edit on 1/30/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

May I politely make a request that everyone ceases to use the word, "speculation". Please?

I am getting quite tired of reading that word.

reply to post by SyphonX

How about "making it up"?