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

This theory of humans genetically upgraded by ET, brings an other problem.

What about ET? This rule should also apply for ET. And so on.....So what was first, the chicken or the egg?

Reduced to zero, the beginning, it all comes down that nature did make DNA of a intelligent being. And what happened after that is open for discussion.

So if nature succeded to combine atoms, into molecules, into DNA of an intelligent being (ET).....nature could also be responsible for the human DNA.

There is no other way......or GOD must have made this special DNA.....but who made GOD? This goes round and round and has no end unless we accept that nature is responisble for making this wonder of (all) life.

Ofcourse we can manipulate DNA and in the future we can probably make new species with applied science. But that was not the question.....

I would leave the ilk of Hancock and Icke out of it. Those guys are fringe pseudo scientists at best who deliberately leave out any information that may counter their crazy ideas. And they are crazy ideas.

I avoid associating fringe stuff with real science. You'll get more from Drake or from Sagan than you ever will from Icke or Hancock or even Freidman who simply conducts a business based on people who want to believe and then presents himself as a person with a significant degree who can give them teh same stories as everyone else who isn't a nuclear scientist as if that give more cred to the tales.

well, Drake (the Drake equation) and Sagan both made huge leaps in thinking and how to research such things and yet, here at ATS, we're more likely to hear about Jones, Rense, Hancock, Freidman, Icke and those types.

It's disheartening when you think about the really great scientific minds who do research in this area and who are given a back seat to the kooks instead merely because the kooks write more blather about the subject and use a lot of tautological tactics repeating themselves over and over again using different words each time that is...

ah well...*sighs*

The thread has gone on like this long enough, eh?

Everyone realizes that Soylent and Phage are absolutely correct, right?

I mean, as much as myself and others were hounding about the way certain people approached the subject, the truth of the matter is that this was the *former* opinion of one man.
To top it off, that man actually revised his opinion on the matter before his death.

He was working with an incomplete data-set when he came to the conclusions we saw in the OP.
In fact, the data-set will ALWAYS BE incomplete.

Yes, directed panspermia is a valid hypothesis. But it isn't any more valid than non-directed panspermia. In fact, it is somewhat less likely based on the criteria Crick used.

It was an enjoyable thread, but I must apologize for the way I conducted myself earlier on. I was using the missteps of a few to drive a point further than it needed to be driven.
And others were doing the same.

I'm sure that all parties involved were on the same page, though.

The notion of extra terestrial intelligence seeding the earth can be implied from many creation myths around the world, as Sitchin et al have pointed out.

But if you read it carefully, Genesis also relates this theory. The give away is

"... the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose." Gen 6:2.

Obviously a distinction between "them" and us. That this may have been a breech of protocol, and may explain how we were given the "Divine Spark," for want of a better term, thus making us "Sons and Daughters" of God and hence not expendable even though we have an animal nature.

I may be right, I may be wrong, but it seems a plausible explanation, and shifts the "Divine," whatever that may be, (certainly beyond my comprehension), to a much more profound level.