It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
www.fasebj.org...
(click on the "begin manual download" link if the pdf doesn't do so automatically)
Again, I'm not saying that just because life could have arisen on Earth more easily than Crick originally thought, or that life could have hitched a ride in a comet more easily than Crick originally thought makes Crick's directed panspermia idea "wrong" -- it just makes it less necessary.
Originally posted by Malcram
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Again, I'm not saying that just because life could have arisen on Earth more easily than Crick originally thought, or that life could have hitched a ride in a comet more easily than Crick originally thought makes Crick's directed panspermia idea "wrong" -- it just makes it less necessary.
I must admit, I don't really see that article as "recanting". They acknowledged certain discoveries but the degree to which they changed their views didn't appear to be radical. I'd say it appeared to soften their stance rather than radically change it. But then I'm no scientist so perhaps such an admission - if there was one - was lost in jargon.
Consequently, I'm not yet convinced that this really invalidates the OP. Although it's good that Cricks later slightly amended view has also been clarified.
We recognized that a complementary system based, for example, on the interaction of positively and negatively charged amino acids might be possible: however, we did not consider it likely that such a system ever existed on the primitive earth. Nowadays we would have a more open mind about the nature of the first replicating system. It may have been RNA, but a number of alternative polymers are possible including polypeptides.
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Who said anything about invalidating the OP?
Originally posted by Malcram
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Who said anything about invalidating the OP?
If nobody is implying that Crick's later comments invalidate the OP, that then I'm very pleased, because I don't think they do either. But I certainly got the impression that was what some were implying. I didn't specifically have you in mind.
[edit on 30-1-2010 by Malcram]
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SyphonX
How about "making it up"?
Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
So why wouldn't an Extra-Terrestrial civilization want to seed life to other planets ? ,we are making the first steps already , and we are a relatively young civilization .
..............
Science is made up of theories , just because this one involves the existence of Extra-Terrestrial civilizations makes it no less worthy of investigation .
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Originally posted by downisreallyup
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.
At no point did I say Crick was wrong. Nor did I say he was an ignorant fool. All I said was in this case, he is speculating and we need to recognize it for speculation. Nothing more. Like Dragonmusic, you are reading things that are not there. I've said nothing different than what Soylent has said; but for some reason, some here have decided to make it a personal argument.
[edit on 30-1-2010 by DoomsdayRex]
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by downisreallyup
Did you notice the winky thingie?
I don't often use those things, when I do it's for a reason.
[edit on 1/30/2010 by Phage]