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

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
It was pretty clear that he's speculating... Why hate the speculator?

At what point was I hating on the speculator? I said nothing of the sort. I was pointing out it was speculation and should not be taken as anything other, as some were doing. That was not a condemnation of either Crick or his idea.

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
And why post about scientific theory when you don't know what it is?

How does that prove I do not know what a scientific theory is? Would you care to explain further how I don't know what a scientific theory is and how Crick's speculation meets the criteria of such?

Originally posted by gortex
The late Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner, co-discoverer of the shape of the DNA molecule and author of Life Itself, made the astounding claim ‘that an advanced civilisation transported the seeds of life in a spacecraft.

May I ask if you read his book "Life Itself"?
I certainly have and nowhere in his book did he CLAIM that an advanced civilisation brought the seed of life to earth in a spacecraft.
This text is about the theory of Directed Panspermia and on page 152 of his book he writes

"The kindest thing to state about Directed Panspermia, then, is to concede that it is indeed a valid scientific theory, but that as a theory it is premature. "

What I wanted to point out here is that there is a HUGE difference between stating a theory and claiming it as fact what you are doing in your OP.

I do believe that there was some form of Panspermia going on, but that is my personal belief and as such irrelevant since no proof.



[edit on 30-1-2010 by thegreatobserver]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by gortex

 

If there is a close enough resemblance it could even become regarded as fact.

[edit on 1/30/2010 by Phage]

Fact? bah...how about...this particular type of structure of RNA/DNA is the inevitable form required for complex life, all other channels fail...so even though the structure is nearly identicial throughout the universe, they are still unrelated. Just as plausable as the seed ship dropping off its genetic goop to the different planets.

As with any progress in science, it solves some questions, and opens things up to alot more speculation.

Originally posted by dragonsmusic

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.

It was pretty clear that he's speculating.
And scientific theory is just that; it's theory and speculation until a new theory comes along that disproves the old model.
Scientific theory speculates , Rex. That's what it does.
And if we already knew about other life then we wouldn't have people speculating.
Flight at one point was only a theory. But people were allowed to speculate on the theories involved because that's part of the process of new discoveries. Why hate the speculator? And why post about scientific theory when you don't know what it is?


"It's not a theory, it does not meet the criteria of a theory. There is no evidence to support it (or refute it), nor is there a way to test or falsify it. It is an idea and little more. "


That's from your second post. And here's my response.


"scientific theory: An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested. Examples of theories: Newton’s Theory of Gravitation, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Mendel’s theory of Inheritance, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity"


www.ncsu.edu...

A theory is drawn from repeated testing and observations, and incorporates laws, predictions and tested hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a tested prediction of what is expected to happen from a study.

What Crick is speculating is neither, it is very interesting, but just speculation.

reply to post by SaturnFX

By "close enough" I did not mean the existence of DNA. I included that eventuality under the heading "hypothesis".

Perhaps I should have been more specific about "close enough". I meant finding an actual genetic relationship. That would constitute "fact".

reply to post by thegreatobserver

post by thegreatobserver
I certainly have and nowhere in his book did he CLAIM that an advanced civilisation brought the seed of life to earth in a spacecraft.

In 1981, he published his version of the origin of life which proposed that it began when micro-organisms from another planet were dropped here by a spaceship sent to Earth from a higher civilisation.

Source

[edit on 30-1-2010 by gortex]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
It was pretty clear that he's speculating... Why hate the speculator?

At what point was I hating on the speculator? I said nothing of the sort. I was pointing out it was speculation and should not be taken as anything other, as some were doing. That was not a condemnation of either Crick or his idea.

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
And why post about scientific theory when you don't know what it is?

How does that prove I do not know what a scientific theory is? Would you care to explain further how I don't know what a scientific theory is and how Crick's speculation meets the criteria of such?

"His claimed evidence is so weak as to be stillborn"

Claimed evidence is stillborn? You weren't hating on the speculator?

As far as your not knowing what a scientific theory is:

"Theories are distinct from theorems: theorems are derived deductively from theories according to a formal system of rules, generally as a first step in testing or applying the theory in a concrete situation. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation."

en.wikipedia.org...


They are never considered "right or wrong" they are "rigorously tentative" meaning they are proposed to be true. They are not absolute.

Also ,


"Although the scientific meaning is by far the more commonly used in academic discourse, it is hardly the only one used, and it would be a mistake to assume from the outset that a given use of the term "theory" in academic literature or discourse is a reference to a scientific or empirically-based theory"

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Subz949


Oh really, would you care to explain how the "big bang theory" is drawn from repeatable and testable hypothesis'?

To the Dragon's Music,
Thanks for posting that definition.
It is something you run across often enough on these boards.
People very quickly confuse definitions in the scientific realms to further their own stance on a subject.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by JayinAR]

reply to post by Subz949




"The word 'theory' is generally considered to derive from Greek θεωρία theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation", from θεωρός "spectator", θέα thea "a view" + ὁρᾶν horan "to see", literally "looking at a show".[1] "

en.wikipedia.org...


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.

I'll go ahead and throw this out there for everyone to consider.
On both sides of the debate.
The "Scientific Method" is a philisophical stance.
There is nothing empirical about it.
It can never prove anything axiomtically.

There.
Now, it would be nice to stick to the confines of that which you use to discredit something.

Be honest with yourselves.

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by thegreatobserver

 

post by thegreatobserver
I certainly have and nowhere in his book did he CLAIM that an advanced civilisation brought the seed of life to earth in a spacecraft.

In 1981, he published his version of the origin of life which proposed that it began when micro-organisms from another planet were dropped here by a spaceship sent to Earth from a higher civilisation.

Source

[edit on 30-1-2010 by gortex]

Yes -- That's right. Just like your source says, Crick PROPOSED that possibly life was dropped off on Earth by an alien spaceship.

Your source (his obituary) is consistent with his book. In the book (as ATS member 'thegreatobserver' pointed out), Crick never CLAIMED that Earth was deliberately seeded with life by aliens. He only speculated this was possible.

I don't understand why this is suddenly a big deal...this has been speculated on many times in the past by many different people. How is Crick's speculation any different?


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

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Subz949

 

Oh really, would you care to explain how the "big bang theory" is drawn from repeatable and testable hypothesis'?

To the Dragon's Music,
Thanks for posting that definition.
It is something you run across often enough on these boards.
People very quickly confuse definitions in the scientific realms to further their own stance on a subject.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by JayinAR]

Scientifically the definitions I stated are correct. As for 'furthering my own stance on a subject'. I don't believe I stated my stance on it, beyond it being an interesting and thought provoking idea. But from a scientific view point it is not a theory.

reply to post by Subz949


I wasn't speaking to you when I spoke of people confusing terms to further their stance on a subject.

And no, you aren't correct in your "definitions."

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
reply to post by Subz949

 

Speculation!!!!!!!!!!!
Scientific theory is speculation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scientific theory is based on repeatable observations and tests. If scientific theory was merely just speculation then you could just dream up any idea that has no sound bases to back it up, and claim it's science, which it isn't.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Subz949

 

I wasn't speaking to you when I spoke of people confusing terms to further their stance on a subject.

And no, you aren't correct in your "definitions."

For the scientific model I am correct.

reply to post by Phage


The term 'speculation' is a very vague term that unfairly paints all beliefs of that category as having the same degree of epistemological justification. Epistemologist Roderick Chisholm came up with some statements known as the 'appeared to' statements that are probably as close as anyone has come to reaching absolute certainty about any type of belief. I think all other types of beliefs, especially ones about the world existing outside of ones own consciousness, have varying degrees of justification for being true or false. In the case of this thread, gortex has presented the reasons put forth by Crick and some oral histories of some ancient tribes as justification for the belief that Directed Panspermia is true. While such a position may be classified as speculation it has a level of epistemological justification greater than many possible types of beliefs about various subject matters that could also be classified as speculation.

reply to post by QtheQ

I did not use the word speculation loosely nor did I say that because it was speculation it was necessarily false (in fact, I said later that it is possible he was correct). I specifically stated why Crick's ideas were speculation; lack of evidence.

Beliefs often have little to do with evidence and some do not require evidence for their beliefs. This is when belief becomes faith and faith has little to do with science. Crick was a scientist. His speculation about the origin of life on Earth does not seem to have been his belief, he offered it as a possibility.

Originally posted by Subz949

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
reply to post by Subz949

 

Speculation!!!!!!!!!!!
Scientific theory is speculation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scientific theory is based on repeatable observations and tests. If scientific theory was merely just speculation then you could just dream up any idea that has no sound bases to back it up, and claim it's science, which it isn't.

No, because it would never make it to actually becoming a theory if you just dreamed it up. Many, many ideas were relegated to the bin of things that were "just dreamt up" and referred to as "not having a sound basis" long before they were considered "accepted theories". What happened during the interim? New information was brought to light.
And any scientist worth his weight would tell you that a theory is thrown out when new evidence shows that a theory is no longer a working model.

Originally posted by dragonsmusic

Originally posted by Subz949

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
reply to post by Subz949

 

Speculation!!!!!!!!!!!
Scientific theory is speculation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scientific theory is based on repeatable observations and tests. If scientific theory was merely just speculation then you could just dream up any idea that has no sound bases to back it up, and claim it's science, which it isn't.

No, because it would never make it to actually becoming a theory if you just dreamed it up. Many, many ideas were relegated to the bin of things that were "just dreamt up" and referred to as "not having a sound basis" long before they were considered "accepted theories". What happened during the interim? New information was brought to light.
And any scientist worth his weight would tell you that a theory is thrown out when new evidence shows that a theory is no longer a working model.

Exactly, when new evidence is brought to light. Not speculation but evidence. evidence which reqiures testing for repeatability so results can be taken, and thereby a new theory arises.

You all sound like a bunch of lawyers. It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Better yet, since none of you know who coined the word "theory" all your definitions are speculative. And besides, the guy with the Nobel Prize is always right.

Anywho...

Considering what we now know about extremophiles like archaea that thrive without sunlight next to scalding thermal vents, it seems within the realm of possibility that life on Earth traveled through space to get here. There are even some very convincing photos of Martian space rocks to support the assertion:

library.thinkquest.org...

And considering that we're engaging in gene splicing experiments right now ourselves, it's certainly also within the realm of possibility that a more advanced extraterrestrial species could have done the same to us. I'm not convinced they seeded the planet though. Seems to me if life is that abundant and floating around on space rocks it's just as likely to have happened accidentally. But it does seem somewhat curious to me that mankind reached the top of the food chain so fast when giant lizards with big teeth were roaming the planet for so long. Evolution seems to work much more slowly than that.